Dear Carolyn: My sister expects me to apologize to her father-in-law after he tried to kill my dog. I went to see my parents with her, same as always. I caught “George” giving my dog some grapes. I explained they were toxic for dogs and she couldn’t have them. Later I saw him feeding them to her. I ran over to stop it but my brother-in-law caught me, saying, “Let him go, he’s having fun and there’s nothing wrong with those grapes.”
He wouldn’t let me go and he’s a huge guy so I used a maneuver I learned in self-defense where you stomp full force down on their instep. It worked, I got away and knocked George away from my dog. I rushed her to the emergency vet, who kept her overnight and said I did the right thing since grapes are so dangerous for a dog.
My dog is okay but now I have a huge vet bill to pay. George told my family how his dogs used to eat grapes all the time and said I was crazy. So instead of being sorry, my family is accusing me of overreacting and hurting my brother-in-law for nothing. They are insisting I apologize to him and his father.
Advertisement
I showed my parents lots of info on how dangerous grapes are for dogs, but they insist this is all BS vets made up to make money. My sister says I’m not welcome in her home until I “humbly apologize” and admit I was wrong. I am not apologizing to people who basically tried to kill my dog and make me watch. Should I stand my ground even if it means not seeing my family for a while?
— Anonymous
Anonymous: Small claims court warrants serious consideration, but backing down does not. Before you entertain thoughts of letting this go because they are “family,” take a moment to consider how much your family status mattered to your brother-in-law in the moment and matters to your sister and parents now.
George and his son could so easily have respected your wishes and left the grapes on the table, even if they believed 100 percent they were safe. There was no point to feeding your dog anything and they had nothing to prove except their control. Your sister and parents, too, could so easily take you (and the vet, and the very concept of expertise) as more credible than George. Or at least as the more valid authority over your own pet.
Advertisement
But they didn’t. And that’s some serious stuff. Physically restraining you is serious, too, and unacceptable even in jest. Barring you from the house is a serious case of punitive excess. All this on top of the serious and reckless arrogance that could have harmed your dog.
And aside from the fact that their conspiracy theory around this issue is laughable — a profession so famously nonremunerative is hardly a magnet for schemers — they are showing hints of something awfully familiar lately: the shunning of expertise as if it’s an enemy tactic in the existential war of “us against them.”
Your motivation was to keep your dog safe. (With some badassery at that.) What was theirs for going to such pointless lengths to negate your authority? Is this their thing? You asked whether standing your ground was worth the price of not seeing your family for a while. My advice is to use the time to think why your family was — is — so weirdly intent on putting you in your place. Maybe ask yourself what you want that place to be.
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7uK3SoaCnn6Sku7G70q1lnKedZK6lwsicnGhqYGeAcHyYaGdqZ5OWv7C42KdkoZmoYrGws4yppqKrn6O2r7OMqK2eqqKarqTAyKeeaA%3D%3D