Etiquette Hell

General Etiquette => Family and Children => Topic started by: hopeful4 on February 10, 2014, 11:36:13 AM

Title: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: hopeful4 on February 10, 2014, 11:36:13 AM
 Had lunch with a friend of mine.   We were getting caught up on work, families, etc... She told me this story and was wondering if her comment was snarky or not....

DF was at her son's home over the holidays. Her DS is married and the gathering included DF, her other DS & his wife, and her DIL family.  Lots of pics taken.  Everyone having a good time.   A few days later, DIL posts a collage of about 70 pictures on FB.  Pictures include everyone who was at the gathering, except DF.   DF thinks this is odd, pictures were taken of everyone including her and yet, out of 70 pictures, she is not in one.  She is a little hurt and comments "Very nice, pictures of your friends and loved ones."  DIL gets angry and tells DS that his mom is being snarky.   Is she?

There is a little background info.  DF's DIL is a hair stylist.  DF would have her hair cut by DIL and pay her around $75 - 100 (more than she paid anyone else) because she was her DIL.  However, DF was never really happy with the way DIL would cut her hair.  Although she tried to explain what she wanted, DF's and DIL's styles never meshed.  Another friend recommended a different stylist DF tried and liked (I thought her hair looked much better as well).  DIL was angry about this, probably more about the $$ (more background I will not get into).   

I told DF that her comment in and of itself isn't snarky but maybe her DIL is feeling a little guilty and trying to pass the blame.  What do you think?
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: TootsNYC on February 10, 2014, 11:38:39 AM
I think it was a little snarky.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: Lauds on February 10, 2014, 11:42:40 AM
I think it is the comma that makes it read as snarky.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: Snooks on February 10, 2014, 11:43:57 AM
Your friend was wrong to comment. I can't think of a nice way to complain that someone didn't post photos of you on FB.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: TurtleDove on February 10, 2014, 11:44:20 AM
Had it been, "Very nice pictures of your friends and loved ones!" I would have no problem with DF's comment. The problem is that, as written, the snark DF intended comes through loud and clear. It seems strange that the DF would be upset or confused by the DIL'a reaction when DF intended her comment to be snarky in the first place.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: JenJay on February 10, 2014, 11:48:10 AM
To me it reads more passive aggressive than snarky. The thing is, if omitting DF was an honest and accidental oversight wouldn't DIL have responded "I agree! It was such a lovely day!!" or similar? The fact that her reaction was to accuse DF of snark suggests that she knows DF is probably upset over the fact that she wasn't included in the pics. That doesn't mean DIL deliberately excluded her but I can see why DF might feel that way.

I think your friend should contact DIL directly and apologize if her comment came across negatively and explain that, while that wasn't her intent (I hope) she was hurt and felt left out. Give the DIL a chance to respond rather than make assumptions about her intent.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: shhh its me on February 10, 2014, 11:52:01 AM
  Yes, a little snarky.

Sometimes a little snark is effective I would suggest not to use any snark with this DIL.   While I would not recommend nitpicking every FB post saying gently and PRIVATELY "  The party was very nice and the pictures are lovely  but I felt a little left out " * would have been better then snark.

Was your friend consciously intending to express her hurt or not have DIL notice she wasn't included? if you was thats the very definition of PA.   Without knowing she was there and not included in any of the photos it would have seemed like a pleasant comment.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: lowspark on February 10, 2014, 11:53:20 AM
Hold on. Was that the entire comment? Or was there any preceding conversation regarding the fact that your friend wasn't in any of the pictures? If there was previous conversation, then yeah, it was snarky although maybe not totally unwarranted.

If there was no previous conversation then in order for SIL to find it snarky, she must have been aware of the fact that your friend wasn't in any of the pix which points to her having left her out deliberately. And that would explain why she found the comment to be snarky.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: Mikayla on February 10, 2014, 11:54:53 AM
I think it is the comma that makes it read as snarky.

Good catch.  I agree.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: ettiquit on February 10, 2014, 11:56:00 AM
It was more passive-aggressive than snarky, but the DIL's response does make it seem as though omitting DF was deliberate and that was waiting for some kind of comment about it.

That might just be my paranoia talking though.   ::)
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: shhh its me on February 10, 2014, 11:58:25 AM
Hold on. Was that the entire comment? Or was there any preceding conversation regarding the fact that your friend wasn't in any of the pictures? If there was previous conversation, then yeah, it was snarky although maybe not totally unwarranted.

If there was no previous conversation then in order for SIL to find it snarky, she must have been aware of the fact that your friend wasn't in any of the pix which points to her having left her out deliberately. And that would explain why she found the comment to be snarky.

IT depends on how DF normally comments.  Something can feel "off" and it take a little while to figure out why. OR its possible that DF was knowingly excluded but not maliciously (ie DF pics were all with her eyes closed or making a funny face or with food in her teeth ,or DIL wanting to ask before posting her pic etc)
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: lowspark on February 10, 2014, 12:06:00 PM
What if there had been pictures of the friend included? And the friend had then posted the exact same comment? It wouldn't be snarky at all.

It seems to me that the only thing that made it snarky was absence of Friend in the pictures. So it can only be interpreted as snarky if both Friend and DIL know that Friend was excluded.

So unless there was conversation about Friend's exclusion, how could DIL possibly interpret snarkiness unless she had deliberately left Friend out. Regardless of the reason why she left friend out.

In other words, she knowingly and consciously left Friend out. She knows there are no pix of Friend. Lacking any evidence that shows that DIL was made to realize that she'd left friend out, the fact that she knows she did indicates why she finds the comment snarky.

Because if she didn't realize she'd left her out, if it was accidental, then how could the comment be interpreted as snarky?
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: dawbs on February 10, 2014, 12:09:20 PM
Comes across as passive aggressive, with the included info.  The friend intended it the way it was received, by her DIL, no?  as a commentary on being left out?

(and I am probably including my own baggage onto that, since I was chided this weekend for slighting someone because my FB lookback video [that FB creates] left out someone.  Apparently I should reprogram FB's bots to make sure no family members get overlooked)
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: pierrotlunaire0 on February 10, 2014, 12:09:37 PM
I think it is the comma that makes it read as snarky.

Good catch.  I agree.

Me too.  If you read it aloud with the comma, it does sound a little sniping.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: hopeful4 on February 10, 2014, 12:12:02 PM
OP, here.  Just to clarify, as this was a conversation between DF and I, I don't know if she had a comma there or not.  I just typed one while posting this.  But no, there was no conversation between DF and her DIL about any pictures.  DF commented when she first saw them and was aware of them. 

It may have been an accident but I personally find it a little hard to believe that out of 70 pictures, not one had DF in them.  Not even group shots.  If it was something like 10 or 20, I would find it more believable.  But I don't know for a fact she did it intentionally.   My take on it was more along the lines of lowspark's and maybe her DIL felt she was called on her behavior (whether that was the intention or not, according to DF, it wasn't) and did not like it.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: Eeep! on February 10, 2014, 12:19:53 PM
What if there had been pictures of the friend included? And the friend had then posted the exact same comment? It wouldn't be snarky at all.

It seems to me that the only thing that made it snarky was absence of Friend in the pictures. So it can only be interpreted as snarky if both Friend and DIL know that Friend was excluded.

So unless there was conversation about Friend's exclusion, how could DIL possibly interpret snarkiness unless she had deliberately left Friend out. Regardless of the reason why she left friend out.

In other words, she knowingly and consciously left Friend out. She knows there are no pix of Friend. Lacking any evidence that shows that DIL was made to realize that she'd left friend out, the fact that she knows she did indicates why she finds the comment snarky.

Because if she didn't realize she'd left her out, if it was accidental, then how could the comment be interpreted as snarky?

I agree.  And I also agree that the only thing that would make the comment snarky in any event - to me at least - is the comma. And since the OP says she put that in there then I'm hesitant to say it was snarky. Maybe a bit PA from the OP's friend's side. But only she would really know that if it was an honest mistake. If that makes sense..
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: TootsNYC on February 10, 2014, 12:24:42 PM
here's a thought--if the DIL didn't know that the MIL was not included in any of the pics, why would she think it was a snarky comment?

If the DIL -thought- the MIL was surely in one or the other of the pics in the collage, then wouldn't she just think it was an awkwardly worded "nice pics" comment?
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: lowspark on February 10, 2014, 12:28:07 PM
here's a thought--if the DIL didn't know that the MIL was not included in any of the pics, why would she think it was a snarky comment?

If the DIL -thought- the MIL was surely in one or the other of the pics in the collage, then wouldn't she just think it was an awkwardly worded "nice pics" comment?

That's exactly my point. As I said:
What if there had been pictures of the friend included? And the friend had then posted the exact same comment? It wouldn't be snarky at all.

If the DIL says "snarky" that means she knows Friend was excluded. Unless Friend and DIL discussed that, there's no way DIL can know that Friend was excluded unless she did it deliberately.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: Twik on February 10, 2014, 12:28:23 PM
I think that the two of them know each other too well.

DIL was hoping that MIL wouldn't notice she wasn't in any pictures. MIL was hoping that DIL wouldn't notice the barb in her comment. Both sets of hopes were dashed.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: TurtleDove on February 10, 2014, 12:38:52 PM
I think that the two of them know each other too well.

DIL was hoping that MIL wouldn't notice she wasn't in any pictures. MIL was hoping that DIL wouldn't notice the barb in her comment. Both sets of hopes were dashed.

Or, alternatively, exactly the opposite, depending on personality!  For some reason, this MIL and DIL do not have a good relationship and I get the sense this has little or nothing to do with whether MIL was in photos or MIL makes poor comments on facebook albums.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: dawbs on February 10, 2014, 12:40:07 PM
here's a thought--if the DIL didn't know that the MIL was not included in any of the pics, why would she think it was a snarky comment?*snip*

Eh, I can see going "that's a weird comment...oh crap, MIL isn't in any of the mainpictures and is now going to make this into a stupid 2nd grade fight about me nto loving her enough"
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: turnip on February 10, 2014, 12:45:20 PM
It sounds like your friend _intended_ it to be snarky.  Whatever background there is between them, she has little room to complain if her DIL picked up on it.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: Twik on February 10, 2014, 12:49:17 PM
As someone who, alas, is not always resistant to the lure of snark - it is very tempting to think that you can *be* snarky, without being *seen* as snarky, because you know that Snarky is Wrong. In this case, it appears that the subtext between both of them was just too strong for it to slip by as an innocent remark.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: nayberry on February 10, 2014, 12:58:11 PM
it doesn't come over as snarky to me,  but i can see why the dil might think it, especially if she deliberately didn't put any pictures of mil up.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: daen on February 10, 2014, 01:01:55 PM
I was once in charge of putting together a photo retrospective for a milestone event for my grandparents. I thought I did well, but my younger sister told me later that there wasn't a single picture of her in the show.

I had included pictures of the three practically-family "grandkids", and multiple pictures of everyone else, but I had somehow missed one of their three actual grandchildren.

My sister didn't take it too much to heart - my reaction of disbelief followed by utter horror and groveling apologies convinced her it was stupidity and not malice on my part. I have learned, however, that when putting together any kind of tribute or retrospective, it is vital to list everyone who is a part of the appropriate group and check them off as they are included.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: Arila on February 10, 2014, 01:07:51 PM
I agree with both of these. Friend was snarky, and DIL reacted badly because she knew she was being called out on intentionally leaving her out of the collage.

... in order for SIL to find it snarky, she must have been aware of the fact that your friend wasn't in any of the pix which points to her having left her out deliberately. And that would explain why she found the comment to be snarky.
It sounds like your friend _intended_ it to be snarky.  Whatever background there is between them, she has little room to complain if her DIL picked up on it.


I agree that the MIL/DIL relationship seems strained, but this round-about commentary is only going to widen the gap. Better for the friend to have directly addressed it and said privately "I noticed that I am not in any of the photos you posted, and the exclusion hurt me."
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: BeagleMommy on February 10, 2014, 01:08:46 PM
I find it very hard to express tone in emails/postings.  Unless DF threw in some capital letters or something, I just can't say it was snarky.

An innocuous comments like "Nice pictures" could be taken any number of ways depending how it was read.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: Julsie on February 10, 2014, 01:14:31 PM
Your friend was wrong to comment. I can't think of a nice way to complain that someone didn't post photos of you on FB.

And in the same vein as Facebook, I looked for a way to "Like" your post!  You are so right.

Lordy, do I have to check each photo before I post it to make sure everyone present is accounted for?
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: lowspark on February 10, 2014, 01:22:23 PM
It is kind of hard to imagine 70 pictures being taken of a group of (presumably) less than 10 people with not one of them including a picture of one of the attendees if it wasn't done deliberately. Especially considering this person is the mother of two of the people there, including the host.

I'm counting the people as such:
Friend, her two sons & their respective wives. That makes five. Plus the DIL's family, which we don't know how many that is but I'm guessing it was no more than five additional people.

Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: GrammarNerd on February 10, 2014, 01:26:37 PM
Your friend was wrong to comment. I can't think of a nice way to complain that someone didn't post photos of you on FB.

And in the same vein as Facebook, I looked for a way to "Like" your post!  You are so right.

Lordy, do I have to check each photo before I post it to make sure everyone present is accounted for?

I think it's the fact of the sheer quantity of pictures and the MIL was not in a single one.  While it could be just careless, it would certainly make me wonder, especially if there was a history with the MIL and DIL.

Perhaps she could have commented something like "Great pictures!  Could you post that one of me with John and Mary?  I really wanted to see how it turned out.  And maybe the one of me with you and Son?  Thanks so much!  Love the collage!"

Then she's specifically asking for the pictures and if you read between the lines, one could figure out that she realized full well that there were none of her.  But she's not calling out the DIL specifically, and it doesn't sound like there are hard feelings (at least to me).  Just....hey, can I see the pics with me?

Alternately, if the relationship is good enough, the friend should ask her own son what's up and tell him that she'd like to see some of the pictures that were taken of her.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: Snooks on February 10, 2014, 01:32:30 PM
It is possible for one person to not be in any shots in a small group.  When we looked at the photos from my 18th birthday which was about 15 people my mom wasn't in a single one. It wasn't in a huge venue just our garden which is about 30 feet long. I'd be interested to know if friend's other son and DIL were featured (not just in the background of a shot) because maybe DIL just picked ones of her family to put on her FB.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: rose red on February 10, 2014, 01:39:03 PM
I wouldn't think anything of that comment unless there was something for me to feel guilty (for lack of a better word) about. 
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: shhh its me on February 10, 2014, 01:44:18 PM
  I think its possible but pretty unlikely  - DIL read the comment felt something off about it* then noticed MIL wasn't in any of the pics. IE If I post a lot of pics all the time and someone close to me never replies and suddenly does I may go look closer at the pics.  I'm not saying OP friend is generally PA but when a person who is PA does something seemingly pleasant that is out of character or says something in a non typical way they're families can pick up on it without knowing exactly what was meant. 

I think it its possible but not very likely that DIL knew MIL wasn't in the pics because for a good reason. 

Then we have most likely DIL intentionally left MIL out (ok its childish and hurtful) then MIL replied in a PA way.   OP did agree MIL meant it to be a dig , PA as snark, right? I think the answer is still don't be PA with this person , it will just annoy DIL you will not get a good reaction. 
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: esposita on February 10, 2014, 01:48:32 PM
Am I reading correctly, that the son told his mom that his wife said she was being snarky? I really think that this whole thing has next to nothing to do with pictures, and much more to do with a poor relationship all-around. I mean, was he calling to scold his mom? Or was he telling her something that his wife had told him privately?

Its the "pictures of your friends and loved ones" that gets me. It just sounds odd to say your instead of our or something. If it were a poor relationship to start with I'd think that was jabby too.

I think families would be much happier if people would just ask in a friendly way, for petes sake! "Did I look horrible in all the pictures or something? I didn't see any of me and that made me kinda sad!!"
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: Kiwichick on February 10, 2014, 01:55:07 PM
here's a thought--if the DIL didn't know that the MIL was not included in any of the pics, why would she think it was a snarky comment?*snip*

Eh, I can see going "that's a weird comment...oh crap, MIL isn't in any of the mainpictures and is now going to make this into a stupid 2nd grade fight about me nto loving her enough"

I agree, that's the first thing I thought.  The DIL read the comment, went back to the photos and realised her MIL wasn't in any of them.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: gellchom on February 10, 2014, 02:00:39 PM
Of course we can't tell for sure what either of them intended.  My guess is that the DIL knew she wasn't putting up pictures of her MIL, and the MIL intended the comment to be pointed, if not snarky (I, too, think that the "your friends and family" language supports that).  Both of which I would consider passive aggressive actions.

They both sound very childish to me. 
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: Otterpop on February 10, 2014, 02:33:13 PM
If I were the DIL, I would not get angry.  I'd be mortified that I'd inadvertently left my MIL out and would hastily put up her pics with an apology or "oops" posting.


Getting angry and commenting to DS makes it sound like she did it on purpose and didn't want to be called out. 
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: hopeful4 on February 10, 2014, 02:37:31 PM
OP, here.  To clarify, from what DF said, the pictures that DIL posted included everyone else that was there except DF.    There were no more than 20 people so.   After reading the replies, and knowing DF, it is possible she was a little PA.  I could see she would be a little hurt but if so, GrandmaNerd certainly suggested a better way of handling it.   Also, it was the DIL who told her husband, DF son, that DF was being snarky. 
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: AnnaJ on February 10, 2014, 02:39:40 PM
It sounds like both women knew they were snarking, but DIL had to involve her husband?  Time to put on her big girl panties and deal with it, not complain that MIL was mean - when you engage in snark, then you often get it back.

Yes, I'm assuming it was deliberate, because if DIL did it accidentally she wouldn't have had any reason to interpret MIL statement in a negative way.  On the outside chance that it was an accident and DIL realized it after the fact, then it was on her to apologize/explain why in 70 pictures of the family MIL didn't appear in any of them.

And no, neither woman comes out looking particularly good, but the fact that DIL chose to escalate the issue by involving other family members makes her more culpable.   
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: dawbs on February 10, 2014, 02:42:59 PM
Call me crazy (crazy), but I don't see any 'little' in the PA.
DIL posted pictures--intentionally or accidentally left off DF.
DF does a not-very-subtle call out of DIL.

DIL's rudeness can be debated (mostly saying, it depends on intent and how intentional of a snub it was)--all in all, it was probably in bad form and probably rude.
(although I would disagree that responding in anger means guilt.  Sometimes, when it feels like an attack, however justified, the end response is lashing back)


But if the question is "was DF snarky/passive aggressive", I think the fact that she intentionally and publicly slid her jibe into her DIL's public FB post, the answer is a resounding 'yes'. 
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: TootsNYC on February 10, 2014, 02:47:57 PM
OP, here.  To clarify, from what DF said, the pictures that DIL posted included everyone else that was there except DF.    There were no more than 20 people so.   After reading the replies, and knowing DF, it is possible she was a little PA.  I could see she would be a little hurt but if so, GrandmaNerd certainly suggested a better way of handling it.   Also, it was the DIL who told her husband, DF son, that DF was being snarky.


And then the son told his mom.  Very bad form for him.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: esposita on February 10, 2014, 03:18:17 PM
OP, here.  To clarify, from what DF said, the pictures that DIL posted included everyone else that was there except DF.    There were no more than 20 people so.   After reading the replies, and knowing DF, it is possible she was a little PA.  I could see she would be a little hurt but if so, GrandmaNerd certainly suggested a better way of handling it.   Also, it was the DIL who told her husband, DF son, that DF was being snarky.


And then the son told his mom.  Very bad form for him.

Pod.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: shhh its me on February 10, 2014, 03:22:24 PM
It sounds like both women knew they were snarking, but DIL had to involve her husband?  Time to put on her big girl panties and deal with it, not complain that MIL was mean - when you engage in snark, then you often get it back.

Yes, I'm assuming it was deliberate, because if DIL did it accidentally she wouldn't have had any reason to interpret MIL statement in a negative way.  On the outside chance that it was an accident and DIL realized it after the fact, then it was on her to apologize/explain why in 70 pictures of the family MIL didn't appear in any of them.

And no, neither woman comes out looking particularly good, but the fact that DIL chose to escalate the issue by involving other family members makes her more culpable.   

I don't think telling your husband is "involving" other family members or escalating.  Marriage is sort of a built in exception to "Don't gossip" or involve others.

Also I don't think calling someone out in a PA way for a slight = you get an apology. it might work out that way but no one is obligated to play that game.

I think if she spitefully excluded her MIL that is mean and childish (but we can't know her motives its likely but without more info its not overwhelmingly likely)
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: luvmyboys on February 10, 2014, 03:31:48 PM
Both parties are PA, neither one accepting responsibility for their actions. Sounds like a crummy relationship, the dil deliberate and your friend afraid to speak her actual mind.  Then throw in the son adding fuel to the fire.  OP, be prepared to hear a lot more of these stories. 
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: lollylegs on February 10, 2014, 03:49:59 PM
I think your friend is being childish, making such a big deal of being left out of a Facebook collage, and I think your friend's son was very wrong to escalate the drama by telling his mum what his wife said. DIL's rudeness depends on whether the slight was intentional or not but no one comes out smelling like a rose.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: shhh its me on February 10, 2014, 04:39:25 PM
  I'll add one thingif   friend meant to "show DIL" and if ]friends response was "why whatever do you mean? I was being pleasant I only said the pictures were nice". That's a pretty vicious from of passive aggression.  Its a way of saying " you're oversensitive and overreacting and maybe a little nuts. why would be anger at me for paying you a compliment."  IMHO being constantly this type of PA is abusive, it's a from of gaslighting , you're telling a person their senses are wrong. 

Please note the IFs

I'm not absolving the DIL  intentionally snubbing someone is childish and might even be bullying but it has to be consistent. Leaving someone off a FB collage once is a pretty minor offense. Depends how many collages she was including in over the years. 
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: johelenc1 on February 10, 2014, 06:03:47 PM
It was snarky.  Very snarky.  My mother is the queen of snarky comments like that - especially about pictures.  Could it have been deliberate?  Possibly.  But it was more likely an oversight or a case of the DIL and DF just not hanging out when the pictures are being taken.

If DF wants to fix this in the future, just go up and ask, "hey, can you take a picture of me and Son,"  or "hey, how about a family picture of all of us".
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: Phoebe on February 10, 2014, 06:43:15 PM
Hold on. Was that the entire comment? Or was there any preceding conversation regarding the fact that your friend wasn't in any of the pictures? If there was previous conversation, then yeah, it was snarky although maybe not totally unwarranted.

If there was no previous conversation then in order for SIL to find it snarky, she must have been aware of the fact that your friend wasn't in any of the pix which points to her having left her out deliberately. And that would explain why she found the comment to be snarky.

This exactly.  The written word doesn't come across nearly as well as the spoken word.  A lot of people aren't very good at punctuation; the placement of a comma doesn't mean much here.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: Otterpop on February 10, 2014, 07:25:33 PM
Hold on. Was that the entire comment? Or was there any preceding conversation regarding the fact that your friend wasn't in any of the pictures? If there was previous conversation, then yeah, it was snarky although maybe not totally unwarranted.

If there was no previous conversation then in order for SIL to find it snarky, she must have been aware of the fact that your friend wasn't in any of the pix which points to her having left her out deliberately. And that would explain why she found the comment to be snarky.

This exactly.  The written word doesn't come across nearly as well as the spoken word.  A lot of people aren't very good at punctuation; the placement of a comma doesn't mean much here.

Good catch, missed this post (was wondering why all the discussion about the comma).  If that's the only thing she said, how did DIL know what DF was talking about?
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: Minmom3 on February 10, 2014, 07:59:39 PM
I'm assuming that the OP's friend knows pictures were taken of her - group pictures with her included - so she knows there ARE pictures, it's just that those weren't posted on FB.  Knowing that, I'd be hurt too.  It rubs salt in the wound to know that there are pictures that could be posted, but they were not used.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: esposita on February 10, 2014, 08:27:37 PM
I'm assuming that the OP's friend knows pictures were taken of her - group pictures with her included - so she knows there ARE pictures, it's just that those weren't posted on FB.  Knowing that, I'd be hurt too.  It rubs salt in the wound to know that there are pictures that could be posted, but they were not used.

I agree that I'd be hurt too. But the response should be to open up a dialogue about it, not to make a little comment about "your friends and family. That DF's response to being hurt was to jab and then get offended when her jab was recognized as being ... well, jabby... to me that does not show a MIL who is trying to deepen the relationship or make it better in any way.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: lollylegs on February 10, 2014, 08:52:33 PM
I'm assuming that the OP's friend knows pictures were taken of her - group pictures with her included - so she knows there ARE pictures, it's just that those weren't posted on FB.  Knowing that, I'd be hurt too.  It rubs salt in the wound to know that there are pictures that could be posted, but they were not used.

I agree that I'd be hurt too. But the response should be to open up a dialogue about it, not to make a little comment about "your friends and family. That DF's response to being hurt was to jab and then get offended when her jab was recognized as being ... well, jabby... to me that does not show a MIL who is trying to deepen the relationship or make it better in any way.

Yes, I think that's what bugs me most about this whole thing. If MIL was genuinely hurt and upset, she should have spoken to DIL in person and in private. Making PA jabs over Facebook seems a bit high school to me. And if a MIL who I'd already had some issues with in the past made those types of statements to me, I'd feel like she wasn't really upset (if she was, she'd talk to me about it) and was just making a fuss for the sake of making a fuss.

I totally understand the urge, though. I've done it in the past. Now I just write them down and don't hit send, get it out of my system without starting a silly online barb war.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: wik31 on February 10, 2014, 09:02:32 PM
I'm assuming that the OP's friend knows pictures were taken of her - group pictures with her included - so she knows there ARE pictures, it's just that those weren't posted on FB.  Knowing that, I'd be hurt too.  It rubs salt in the wound to know that there are pictures that could be posted, but they were not used.

I agree that I'd be hurt too. But the response should be to open up a dialogue about it, not to make a little comment about "your friends and family. That DF's response to being hurt was to jab and then get offended when her jab was recognized as being ... well, jabby... to me that does not show a MIL who is trying to deepen the relationship or make it better in any way.

Pod!  Your friend made a passive-aggressive remark and when called out on her aggression now wants the deniability of her passiveness.  Her DIL wasn't born yesterday and saw the comment for what it was.  Time for your friend to own her feelings and handle them maturely. 
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: Allyson on February 10, 2014, 10:15:53 PM
I do think it was passive aggressive--the statement of "she was hurt, and then posted it" makes it pretty clear that she wasn't just innocently posting "Yay, pictures!" at all. I think, though, that DIL could also have a guilty conscience, depending on her intent. Probably would've been better for her to pretend everything was fine and she didn't notice, though.

Deliberately not posting pictures of one specific person just seems like a weird thing to do. Did she not take any whenever MIL was nearby, or just delete all the ones with her in it..? I don't understand what the point of that woudl even be. I could definitely see a situation though, where DIL isn't a huge fan of MIL, so doesn't go out of her way to snap pics of her, and it turns out that there are none at all.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: Marbles on February 10, 2014, 11:10:02 PM
DH and I take a lot of pictures. When we post them online, we always make sure that there are no bad pictures of people - no pictures with funny expressions, no blurry pics, no shots of people eating, etc. There are times when it turns out that we end up with no pictures of some people at a party because posting bad/embarassing pictures isn't something we do.

Now, we haven't seen the photo set in the OP, but it's entirely possible that there were no good pictures of MIL for DIL to post. So, what was she to do? Post a bad picture for the sake of inclusion and risk a snarky response from her MIL? Or post no pics and get a snarky comment from her MIL? There's no winning here.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: SeptGurl on February 11, 2014, 05:42:15 AM
I'm with those who describe DF's comment as PA. I wouldn't go so far as to call it snarky, but it does seem there was a message or intent behind the comment. DF now knows the message was delivered, and it didn't have the outcome she wanted.

I do understand DF's hurt. She feels left out. My read on DIL's reaction is that it seems likely she was aware she didn't post photos of DF. If she weren't aware of it, then there would have been no reason for her to become defensive about DF's comment.

This situation, to me, illustrates the saying, "Two wrongs don't make a right." It seems that DIL may have engaged in some PA behavior by not including photos of DF, and DF's response to that also was PA. The PA behavior between them is sending messages, but it isn't going to resolve their problems.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: CookieChica on February 11, 2014, 06:05:46 AM
I'm with those who describe DF's comment as PA. I wouldn't go so far as to call it snarky, but it does seem there was a message or intent behind the comment. DF now knows the message was delivered, and it didn't have the outcome she wanted.

I do understand DF's hurt. She feels left out. My read on DIL's reaction is that it seems likely she was aware she didn't post photos of DF. If she weren't aware of it, then there would have been no reason for her to become defensive about DF's comment.

This situation, to me, illustrates the saying, "Two wrongs don't make a right." It seems that DIL may have engaged in some PA behavior by not including photos of DF, and DF's response to that also was PA. The PA behavior between them is sending messages, but it isn't going to resolve their problems.

Exactly this. Neither of them did anything to fix any issues.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: klm75 on February 11, 2014, 08:52:15 AM
DH and I take a lot of pictures. When we post them online, we always make sure that there are no bad pictures of people - no pictures with funny expressions, no blurry pics, no shots of people eating, etc. There are times when it turns out that we end up with no pictures of some people at a party because posting bad/embarassing pictures isn't something we do.

Now, we haven't seen the photo set in the OP, but it's entirely possible that there were no good pictures of MIL for DIL to post. So, what was she to do? Post a bad picture for the sake of inclusion and risk a snarky response from her MIL? Or post no pics and get a snarky comment from her MIL? There's no winning here.

I am the same way with pictures, I may take a 200 picture and only have 70 worth keeping.

I had a difficult relationship with my MIL.  She told family members that she hated me, and was critical to my face, nothing I did was good enough.  It got to a point that everything she said to me seemed critical, I know that she may not have meant things to sound critical, but that is what I heard.

It is possible that the DIL left out all the pictures of her MIL, or had no good ones to post, or just didn't take that many of MIL. 
MIL is hurt, but tries to say something nice and the hurt shows through or their relationship was so bad that the DIL couldn't see it as a nice statement. 
Then DIL goes to her husband, gives an off hand remark about his mom being snarky again and he talks to his mom hoping to fix things or DIL demands that he talk to his mom about her snarky behaviour and the husband talks to his mom hoping to fix things.

All of these show a difficult relationship that does not rest on one comment. 
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: baconsmom on February 11, 2014, 01:53:38 PM
I think your friend was snarky, and I have to ask: Did she click through?

A photo collage on a Facebook feed will not show whole pictures. Ever. I have thumbnails in my photo albums that don't show whole pictures - I know I'm in them, but the sizing features on Facebook mean that unless I click on the actual pic to see the whole thing, I won't be able to see myself.

DIL might think she's being especially snarky if she actually *is* in the pics, and just commented on the feed-sized picture, where she doesn't show up.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: lowspark on February 11, 2014, 02:20:37 PM
I guess I just don't get what's snarky about "Very nice, pictures of your friends and loved ones" (with or without the comma) if she actually were included in the pictures.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: wolfie on February 11, 2014, 02:27:50 PM
I guess I just don't get what's snarky about "Very nice, pictures of your friends and loved ones" (with or without the comma) if she actually were included in the pictures.

I don't see what was snarky about if she is excluded. It seems like a simple statement of fact to me.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: shhh its me on February 11, 2014, 02:42:47 PM
I guess I just don't get what's snarky about "Very nice, pictures of your friends and loved ones" (with or without the comma) if she actually were included in the pictures.

I agree there isn't , on its own.  I think its possible it was "off" for MIL and DIL may have noticed what was "wrong" with the pics after the comment was made.  I am conceding this is unlikely. 

A PA response to a snub is still PA.  Say the DIL was mad and deleted all the pics of her MIL or out of anger chose not to include them I agree thats childish and hurtful but its also DIL's FB page she doesn't have to include her MIL.  If someone doesn't want to include you "make" them want to include you or even tell them you are hurt. 

MIL was PA (since MIL is the person by proxy asking the question) MIL knows how she meant her comment she doesn't really need to ask. " I meant this to be PA but if you don't know the facts it looks totally innocent , right?" (I know this is not how she phrase the question but I beliave its likely this is the actually question she was asking)" I don't think is a polite concept.   It's a totally different question then " I was hurt but really trying to be cheerful, does this seem snarky to you?".  I do believe people can be PA without unconsciously . 
 

If DIL was asking my first question would be "why wasn't MIL in any of the pics".  I'd follow with "well that was mean*." and "yes she was PA."

* assuming the answer wasn't "I knew MIL wasn't in the pics but everyone of her had something wrong with it."/ "the pics of her were on someone else camera/phone" etc.   
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: mj on February 11, 2014, 04:58:14 PM
I have bit of a different take, I don't think "excluded" from pictures is the right word or phrase, because MIL was not.  She was not asked to step out of the pictures or deliberately not taken a photo of, the photos just were not posted to her DILs facebook page.

Since there were 20 people there, it seems like looking to make sure the other 19 were represented in DILs pictures seems like a very intense interest and somewhat obsessive.  It would be different had the MIL said "I wasn't in any of the posted pictures" to the OP, but what it is coming across is saying that she was *excluded* therefore she went and looked through 70 pictures to make sure that the other 19 participants were in someway represented.  That's a LOT of time and effort for something that is on anothers page.

On another note, she could have just asked for some pictures of her if they meant that much, she really didn't have to comb through her DILs pictures to make sure 19 other people were in them and then exclaim she was *excluded* which makes it out to be a bigger deal than it is, the only thing that she did not get was pictures of herself on her DILs facebook page.  Her behavior to this as described is seriously overkill in my books and I can see myself saying the same thing as the DIL here to my husband, it is snarky and very passive aggressive.  If you are that upset, you could contact your son to get the pictures.  It's clear from what she told the OP was not about getting pictures but about being represented on her DILs facebook page, that is very controlling to me.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: mj on February 11, 2014, 05:02:03 PM
OP, here.  Just to clarify, as this was a conversation between DF and I, I don't know if she had a comma there or not.  I just typed one while posting this.  But no, there was no conversation between DF and her DIL about any pictures.  DF commented when she first saw them and was aware of them. 

It may have been an accident but I personally find it a little hard to believe that out of 70 pictures, not one had DF in them.  Not even group shots.  If it was something like 10 or 20, I would find it more believable.  But I don't know for a fact she did it intentionally.   My take on it was more along the lines of lowspark's and maybe her DIL felt she was called on her behavior (whether that was the intention or not, according to DF, it wasn't) and did not like it.

I'm not sure how anyone could be called out on this and any attempts to will be seen poorly, imo.  This would be similar as to a MIL making remarks about not being in photos that the DIL displayed in her home, the MIL simply has no ownership over what the DIL puts on her own facebook page.  None.  So to attempt to call out is going to be seen as snarky or passive-aggressive, you cannot control another adults decisions in these matters.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: Arila on February 11, 2014, 05:08:20 PM
Along the lines of MJ, I can see that DIL might have only posted/taken photos with her or her husband in them. If there is tension between one/both of them and Friend, Friend might not have been in any of the photos taken with them, even if she was in some of the ones taken by/with the other 18 people there.


Question:
Has Friend ever un-tagged herself or asked DIL to remove or not post photos of her? If so, DIL might be feeling a little "Damned if I do, damned if I don't" about it.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: LifeOnPluto on February 12, 2014, 05:07:44 AM
I guess I just don't get what's snarky about "Very nice, pictures of your friends and loved ones" (with or without the comma) if she actually were included in the pictures.

I don't see what was snarky about if she is excluded. It seems like a simple statement of fact to me.

I must be dense, because I don't see anything snarky about it either.

I'm guessing that perhaps there's a lot of "history" between the OP's friend and her DIL that we don't know about?

Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: Owly on February 12, 2014, 07:50:47 AM
I guess I just don't get what's snarky about "Very nice, pictures of your friends and loved ones" (with or without the comma) if she actually were included in the pictures.

I don't see what was snarky about if she is excluded. It seems like a simple statement of fact to me.

I must be dense, because I don't see anything snarky about it either.

I'm guessing that perhaps there's a lot of "history" between the OP's friend and her DIL that we don't know about?

Because she doesn't think it's "very nice". She's upset that the photos of her were left off. The message she's sending is "I'm not one of your loved ones", except she's using rather passive aggressive sarcasm to get her point across instead of directly addressing her hurt feelings.

You can argue that the snark is justified, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: auntmeegs on February 12, 2014, 08:21:58 AM
My feeling on it is that if you behave badly (and assuming that the OPís friend is not toxic, I consider purposely not including your MIL in a single photo out of dozens at a family event, pretty nasty behavior), then you are inviting snarky comments and you should not be surprised when you receive them.  The fact that she identified the comments are snarky is, IMO, proof that she did it on purpose.  And thatís just really mean. 
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: lowspark on February 12, 2014, 08:58:58 AM
OP, here.  Just to clarify, as this was a conversation between DF and I, I don't know if she had a comma there or not.  I just typed one while posting this.  But no, there was no conversation between DF and her DIL about any pictures.  DF commented when she first saw them and was aware of them. 

It may have been an accident but I personally find it a little hard to believe that out of 70 pictures, not one had DF in them.  Not even group shots.  If it was something like 10 or 20, I would find it more believable.  But I don't know for a fact she did it intentionally.   My take on it was more along the lines of lowspark's and maybe her DIL felt she was called on her behavior (whether that was the intention or not, according to DF, it wasn't) and did not like it.

I just reread this post. And it suddenly occurred to me that not only does the OP not know whether there was a comma or not, the OP may not really know the exact quote. Since this was told to the OP in a conversation, I gotta wonder if the friend sort of paraphrased her comment in the nicest possible light.

OP, any way you can see the exact quote? I don't use facebook so I don't know how it all works but I'd be curious to know the exact wording of the comment your friend made.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: TurtleDove on February 12, 2014, 09:03:46 AM
I have bit of a different take, I don't think "excluded" from pictures is the right word or phrase, because MIL was not.  She was not asked to step out of the pictures or deliberately not taken a photo of, the photos just were not posted to her DILs facebook page.

Since there were 20 people there, it seems like looking to make sure the other 19 were represented in DILs pictures seems like a very intense interest and somewhat obsessive.  It would be different had the MIL said "I wasn't in any of the posted pictures" to the OP, but what it is coming across is saying that she was *excluded* therefore she went and looked through 70 pictures to make sure that the other 19 participants were in someway represented.  That's a LOT of time and effort for something that is on anothers page.

On another note, she could have just asked for some pictures of her if they meant that much, she really didn't have to comb through her DILs pictures to make sure 19 other people were in them and then exclaim she was *excluded* which makes it out to be a bigger deal than it is, the only thing that she did not get was pictures of herself on her DILs facebook page.  Her behavior to this as described is seriously overkill in my books and I can see myself saying the same thing as the DIL here to my husband, it is snarky and very passive aggressive.  If you are that upset, you could contact your son to get the pictures.  It's clear from what she told the OP was not about getting pictures but about being represented on her DILs facebook page, that is very controlling to me.
I agree with this.  I am not certain what the MIL was trying to accomplish.  Her behavior in "calling out" DIL did nothing to improve relations between them, and probably contributed to the decay of the relationship.  MIL doesn't want photos from the event, or she would either have taken her own or asked for a copy of the photo.  MIL wants to "prove" that DIL is treating her shabbily, which....well, if DIL is treating her shabbily, calling her out like that isn't going to improve things and if this was simply an oversight it isn't going to help either.  I see MIL as simply wanting to feed the drama, which is something I personally do not have time for.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: Winterlight on February 12, 2014, 09:46:09 AM
I think that it's entirely possible that a photo of MIL was left out accidentally. I think MIL took a PA dig at DIL. I think they both need to step back and cool down.

And I've been the one person who was left off of a FB pic post- the pictures were in another camera and hadn't been processed yet. You all talked me down from getting upset!
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: wolfie on February 12, 2014, 09:48:06 AM
I guess I just don't get what's snarky about "Very nice, pictures of your friends and loved ones" (with or without the comma) if she actually were included in the pictures.

I don't see what was snarky about if she is excluded. It seems like a simple statement of fact to me.

I must be dense, because I don't see anything snarky about it either.

I'm guessing that perhaps there's a lot of "history" between the OP's friend and her DIL that we don't know about?

Because she doesn't think it's "very nice". She's upset that the photos of her were left off. The message she's sending is "I'm not one of your loved ones", except she's using rather passive aggressive sarcasm to get her point across instead of directly addressing her hurt feelings.

You can argue that the snark is justified, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

The problem with using passive aggressive sarcasm is that not everyone understands it. If you posted that one a post on my wall I would just cheerfully agree with you because it is true and wouldn't even think you were trying to tell me anything at all.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: shhh its me on February 12, 2014, 10:01:22 AM


The problem with using passive aggressive sarcasm is that not everyone understands it. If you posted that one a post on my wall I would just cheerfully agree with you because it is true and wouldn't even think you were trying to tell me anything at all.

That's not the problem ,well at least not the big one.  With PA statements you are trying to make a person feel something negative(hurt , shame , guilt etc) , then when they say "that hurt "  you get to say "what? why? that was pleasant comment." *innocent maybe even wounded expression*

If the receiver doesn't get it it only frustrates the PA person , which I don't see as a problem.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: SeptGurl on February 12, 2014, 11:34:51 AM


The problem with using passive aggressive sarcasm is that not everyone understands it. If you posted that one a post on my wall I would just cheerfully agree with you because it is true and wouldn't even think you were trying to tell me anything at all.

That's not the problem ,well at least not the big one.  With PA statements you are trying to make a person feel something negative(hurt , shame , guilt etc) , then when they say "that hurt "  you get to say "what? why? that was pleasant comment." *innocent maybe even wounded expression*

If the receiver doesn't get it it only frustrates the PA person , which I don't see as a problem.

POD. The bolded is called "gaslighting," and it's one of the hallmarks of the toxic relationship.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: Ceallach on February 12, 2014, 03:01:41 PM
My feeling on it is that if you behave badly (and assuming that the OPís friend is not toxic, I consider purposely not including your MIL in a single photo out of dozens at a family event, pretty nasty behavior), then you are inviting snarky comments and you should not be surprised when you receive them.  The fact that she identified the comments are snarky is, IMO, proof that she did it on purpose.  And thatís just really mean.

If I'm uploading photos from an event I pick my favourite shots, and ones of myself.   It's my Facebook.   I don't see it as a public service or something I owe my guests, and I certainly don't sit there checking that there's at least one photo of everybody who attended.    Yes, if it's a deliberate slight it's a bit mean, but I think it's more likely unconscious.   I don't think it's nasty.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: TurtleDove on February 12, 2014, 03:08:19 PM
Yes, if it's a deliberate slight it's a bit mean, but I think it's more likely unconscious.   

Yep.  And it has little to do with the photo so any focus on that would be misplace.  This is why no matter what I think the MIL is out of line.
Title: Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
Post by: mrs_deb on February 12, 2014, 05:45:47 PM
I took pictures at a week-long event recently, and after reading all of these comments, am glad that I made certain that everyone who was at the event was represented pretty much equally in the photobucket album that I sent out to the attendees.

Some people are much more photogenic and were more active than others and I had a lot more, and better, ones of them.

But, 70 pics, and not one of MIL?  Seems...odd.