How do I deal with my EXTREME passive aggressive sister?

It might well be a good idea to co-ordinate
with your mom and your other sisters; maybe get a consensus.
If u all choose to complain to Tina, then maybe it 'd be best
issuing from your mom, possibly carrying more weight than if u do.

It might well be a good idea to co-ordinate
with your mom and your other sisters; maybe get a consensus.
If u all choose to complain to Tina, then maybe it 'd be best
issuing from your mom, possibly carrying more weight than if u do.

I think this would be a huge mistake- and more than that- a disrespectful way
to treat your sister. If you are all adults, you should treat each other as such.

And this sort of going behind one's back to arrive at a 'consensus'
about that person's personality traits that the others don't like
and would like her to change is childish, petty and disrespectful.

Why would someone do that?

Because they don't trust their own opinion enough

and they have to weight it and bolster it and themselves with backup and support?

That's the sort of thing people do in junior high school-
'You do this and this and this - everyone thinks so...'

If you care enough and really want to salvage your relationship -
talk to your sister. If you don't - don't. Maybe you should look at
your own issues and see if there's not something you might need to change.
But if you want her to respect you all and feel at all comfortable
within your family don't treat her like a communal problem and have
your mom lead an intervention on her negative personality traits
that you all have decided bother you. That's just bullshit.
Sorry David - but that's not the way to treat an equal or that
secure adults with healthy self-confidence treat other adults.

I will stand by my reasoning; Arlene can judge which is the better way to go.
I infer that by your use of the word "adults" u probably mean
reasonable people. I am not certain of whether Arlene deems Tina to be
reasonable in her mental processes or not. Factional fragmentation
in the face of a common problem is not the ideal way to proceed, in my opinion.

From Arlene 's post, I don 't have the impression that
her mom and 2 other sisters respect Tina's behavior.
Thay have already been discussing what to do about it.
Since Tina 's behavior is their common problem,
thay shoud consider how best to address it.
It woud be of questionable wisdom to have Tina sitting right there
while thay r trying to decide what to do. A planning session is not
a trial in a court of law. I don 't see that it has anything to do with age.
I had this problem yesterday, when I was asked to ostracize someone
because of untoward ad hominem comments that she has made (sometimes loudly)
in public, on several occasions.
If I had tried to analyse the problem with her participating
in the discussions, only a loud verbal fight woud have resulted.
Arlene must decide how it is most wise to proceed in her circumstances.

If I understand u accurately, u r implying that people of that age,
13 to 15, r always incorrect and therefore, we shoud avoid doing
anything that thay do. I don't accept your premise.
I think that is what u implied; if u meant something other than
that people of that age are stupid, then please tell us what u mean.

I will stand by my reasoning; Arlene can judge which is the better way to go.
I infer that by your use of the word "adults" u probably mean
reasonable people. I am not certain of whether Arlene deems Tina to be
reasonable in her mental processes or not. Factional fragmentation
in the face of a common problem is not the ideal way to proceed, in my opinion.

And I stand by mine. When I say 'adult' I mean a person of legal age who is responsible
for his or her own actions and behavior and does not or should
not depend on Mommy to intercede and solve his or her problems.

Of course all adults are not reasonable. But the problems that Arlene has outlined with her sister rely very heavily on her perception. She says that her sister says she is fine with doing what she asks her to do, but that she's not, in reality. How does she know this? Has the sister said, 'I don't like you to ask me to do things.' Has the sister said, 'I've always been jealous of you'? Has the sister said, 'I think I'm better than you because my family's income is bigger than yours'?
These are all things that she's positing.
She can only be sure of how the sister feels if she asks her or says
to her, 'I get the feeling that even though you say you'll do these things,
you don't like it when I suggest them'...and on down the line.

From Arlene 's post, I don 't have the impression that
her mom and 2 other sisters respect Tina's behavior.
Thay have already been discussing what to do about it.
Since Tina 's behavior is their common problem,
thay shoud consider how best to address it.
It woud be of questionable wisdom to have Tina sitting right there
while thay r trying to decide what to do. A planning session is not
a trial in a court of law. I don 't see that it has anything to do with age.
I had this problem yesterday, when I was asked to ostracize someone
because of untoward ad hominem comments that she has made (sometimes loudly)
in public, on several occasions.
If I had tried to analyse the problem with her participating
in the discussions, only a loud verbal fight woud have resulted.
Arlene must decide how it is most wise to proceed in her circumstances.

Well, I guess that's where we differ.
If anyone ever asked me to ostracize someone else,
I'd have a hard time looking at that person as anything but immature and meddling.

As far as I'm concerned everyone should be able to experience
each person separately and make their decision about whether
or not to interact with that person accordingly. I don't like these
'talk behind peoples' backs and come up with a consensus scenarios'.

I worked at one place where the woman in charge was almost universally disliked
and my department had this meeting about confronting her.
I told them I would not be involved.

I felt that it was cowardly and disrespectful to talk about her

and present her with a fait accompli consensus in which she
was not allowed to be present to answer for herself and face her accusers

instead of some amorphous 'we' who all agreed after talking about
it behind her back.

And when you're dealing with a family David - in my estimation
there's even more care that needs to be taken.
But that's probably because my mother drummed into my head the concept of family loyalty and love

- and I would never want to hurt or ostracize or isolate a member
of my family by letting him or her know that I'd been discussing
everything I didn't like about him or her with everyone else who
felt the same way behind his or her back.

And most ESPECIALLY not as the mother of that family.
No - I would never put one of my children in the position
of having to feel that way. I'd talk to him or her myself
and encourage anyone who had a problem with him or her
to manage it on their own.

If I understand u accurately, u r implying that people of that age,
13 to 15, r always incorrect and therefore, we shoud avoid doing
anything that thay do. I don't accept your premise.
I think that is what u implied; if u meant something other than
that people of that age are stupid, then please tell us what u mean.

You didn't understand me accurately.
If anything, I appreciate children and their directness much more
than I do adults and their tendency to manipulate- so I most definitely
do NOT feel that they are always incorrect.

But one thing they do tend to do, as a group (which some people never, in fact outgrow)
is to function in cliques as gangs. And I don't think that's a good way
for a family of adults to approach one another or function.

I think it can cause hurt feelings or misunderstandings
to the point that emotional hurts or fractures are never healed.

Let's put it this way - if my adult brother or sister had a problem
with me and they had a family meeting about it and then had my
mother or father approach me my first question would be,
'What's the matter with you? Why can't you speak for yourself?

And my second reaction would be to feel hurt and betrayed
by my parents. Because honestly I can't imagine them sitting
with my other brothers and sisters and speaking negatively about me.
It just wouldn't happen.

They love and treat all of us equally and while accepting that
none of us are perfect, have never made themselves open to
being the repository for all of our criticisms of each other.
And that's the way I think parents should be in a family.

Does that mean that if a colleague offends u
(suppose he steals your lunch or kicks u in the knee)
u can 't talk about it with your other colleagues,
unless the perpetrator is present? I don 't see it that way.

I can 't blame them for desiring to be properly organized, rather than haphazzard.
If those people suffered a variety of abuses at her hands,
to me it seems very natural that, free speech being what it is,
these people will complain of their respective injuries to one another.

How do u feel about labor unions?
Is it immoral or unethical for the membeship to discuss
their complaints among themselves at a meeting,
even if management is not present at the union meeting?

Is it disloyal to discuss their complaints?
I don't think it is, be it among children qua parents,
nor reciprocally between parents qua children, etc.
That is just normal and very paradigmatic free speech qua newsworthy events.
" Hay, sister: Uncle Charlie said that and did THIS!"

To MY mind, that is very natural family behavior.
I imagine that nearly all families thusly converse
among themselves in an ambiance of freedom.
Candor moves me to take it a step further, to wit:
enforced self-discipline of NOT discussing events
(for good or ill) of family members, to me seems
artificially stifling & unnaturally constrictive
such as to be inconsistent with the spirit of being "at home"
free and relaxed and expressing oneself openly.
I suspect that very few families live (stifled) like that.
I don 't think its emotionally healthy to dwell
so severely repressed, especially not on a long-term basis.

What if speaking to u was ineffective and the objected conduct persisted,
to the dissatisfaction of other family members?
Suppose, e.g., in conversation with your dad, your sister says:
"U know, Rebecca called me a blankety blank n said that I 'm ugly!
She 's getting on my nerves" to which he replies:
"yeah? Well, I didn't like it much either when she threw a rock thru my window!"
Your brother then chimes in:
"yeah? Well u know, she stole my son Wendel 's bike;
I saw her riding away on it, thru my binoculars!"

What if speaking to u was ineffective and the objected conduct persisted,
to the dissatisfaction of other family members?

Suppose, e.g., in conversation with your dad, your sister says:
"U know, Rebecca called me a blankety blank n said that I 'm ugly!
She 's getting on my nerves" to which he replies:
"yeah? Well, I didn't like it much either when she threw a rock thru my window!"
Your brother then chimes in:
"yeah? Well u know, she stole my son Wendel 's bike;
I saw her riding away on it, thru my binoculars!"

We're all boring law abiders in my family David.
We don't provide each other with that sort of juicy gossip or exciting diversions.
Otherwise - yeah - I guess we'd have a field day with it all.

When dealing with a big sister, when she is passive-aggressive, if you should go behind her back and discuss "the way she is" you could hurt her feelings and she may never forgive you. This sort of person sometimes seeks revenge. Now, who would want to start such a family go-around? That is cruel. I think the person who asks this question is handling her sister just fine, but a little more straight-forwardness would make her feel less like she's being controlled. Limiting the conversation is a good idea.