In a quiet home filled with unspoken struggles, a young woman finds a lifeline in the kindness of her sister-in-law and brother. Escaping a childhood shadowed by ignorance and neglect, she steps into a world that demands growth, responsibility, and hope — a stark contrast to the life she once knew.
Yet, this new beginning stirs a fierce storm of resistance from her mother, who sees love and structure as chains and control. Amid the clash of old beliefs and new possibilities, the question lingers: is it wrong to push for a better future when the price is a battle of wills and hearts?
AITA for forcing SIL to abide by my beliefs?
According to developmental psychologist Erik Erikson, adolescence and emerging adulthood are critical periods for developing a sense of identity and achieving independence. The sister-in-law (SIL), at 18, is developmentally ready to acquire necessary life competencies. The user and her husband are implementing a structure focused on achieving competence (GED, basic life skills, driving) which aligns with promoting healthy psychosocial development, contrasting sharply with the environment that resulted in the SIL not attending school since first grade.
The mother-in-law’s reaction, accusing the users of ‘brainwashing,’ suggests a form of emotional labor displacement and loss of control. She views the users’ mandatory structure as an imposition of ‘beliefs’ rather than a necessary framework for basic functionality. This scenario involves a conflict over autonomy versus safety/competence. While the SIL is legally an adult, her lack of fundamental skills places her in a dependent state, justifying the implementation of temporary, competence-building rules, much like a structured transitional living program.
The users’ actions appear appropriate for the situation presented, prioritizing the SIL’s long-term capability for self-sufficiency over short-term parental approval. A constructive recommendation is to maintain clear, written communication with the SIL regarding expectations and progress benchmarks, ensuring all rules are framed around functional goals (e.g., ‘to get a job,’ ‘to live independently’) rather than abstract moralizing, which may slightly temper the MIL’s perception of ideological warfare.
REDDIT USERS WERE STUNNED – YOU WON’T BELIEVE SOME OF THESE REACTIONS.
You aren’t pushing any beliefs on this young woman. You are teaching her _life survival skills_. What your MIL did to her was _abuse_. You’re awesome for helping this young woman! I hope she has a bright future.
![[deleted] NTA](https://animalstrend.com/wp-content/uploads/wp-img-cache/14b5c3e09c6d5f006ebcb372d59bb968.png)
SIL is an adult woman and can chose where to live. Also… these “believes” are abuse. Not being able to shower alone at 16 is abuse.
What your MIL describe as “beliefs” are in fact normal life skills. Reading, cooking, showering are basic skills in most developped countries.
The user finds herself in a difficult position, attempting to provide structure and education for her sister-in-law while navigating severe conflict with her mother-in-law. The central tension lies between the user’s proactive efforts to ensure the sister-in-law gains essential life skills and the mother-in-law’s resistance, framed as protecting her daughter from unwelcome influence.
Given the stark difference in life outcomes resulting from the two parenting styles, is it justifiable to enforce educational and life skill requirements on a dependent adult relative to promote independence, even when it directly challenges the beliefs of their biological parent?
