In this scenario, the protagonist, a 25-year-old woman, faces a dilemma regarding her sister-in-law (SIL), who works with her and has requested that she make her packed lunch. The protagonist and her husband have a meal prep routine that works well for them, but the SIL, who often buys lunch, expressed envy of the protagonist’s homemade meals in the past. When the SIL asked the protagonist to give her lunch because she couldn’t afford to buy her own, the protagonist offered to share but refused to provide a full meal every day.
The SIL’s repeated requests for free lunches and her complaints outside of work about the protagonist’s refusal led to tension between them. The protagonist’s husband supported her decision and called out the SIL’s entitlement. Despite the SIL’s criticism, the protagonist maintained her stance, believing that she shouldn’t be obligated to provide meals for someone else, especially without compensation.
From a neutral perspective, the protagonist’s refusal to make packed lunches for her SIL doesn’t make her the asshole (AITA). She and her husband have their own meal prep routine that works for them, and it’s unreasonable for the SIL to expect her to provide free meals on a regular basis. While offering to share occasionally is kind-hearted, expecting the protagonist to bear the responsibility of providing daily lunches for her SIL is unfair, especially considering the SIL’s dismissive attitude toward meal prepping herself. The protagonist’s decision to stand firm on this boundary, despite criticism from the SIL, seems reasonable given the circumstances.
Read for more info Reddit
Here were the top rated comments from readers in response to the OP’s post:
LadyCriss
