or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › No Babies/Children Rule Weddings?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

No Babies/Children Rule Weddings? - Page 8

post #141 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel View Post
Count me among those who wonder how it took you 45 minutes to explain your reasons if "in laws and traditional etiquette" are the only reasons you've got. Especially since it sounds like you don't even understand the reasons behind the etiquette in question.

The babes-in-arms exception is standard practice, even in the most formal venues, due to the nature of the various stages of child development. I have a three year old right now that I can't even go into McDonald's with because of her rambunctiousness; but when she was six months old or so, I dined quite comfortably with her in some of my city's finest establishments, and nobody raised an eyebrow. Furthermore, the extreme dependency of an infant means that there can be no social expectation on the mother to leave it for any length of time. The fact that other mothers are willing to leave their babies - or even the fact that the mother herself, on her own initiative, does so in other situations - does not license the inviter to demand that she do so for their particular event. That would be an invasion of privacy and of their right to make their own family arrangements. (Let alone 45 minute phone calls to underscore the demand!)

In a nutshell: by disinviting the baby, you explicitly disinvited the mother herself, even if you yourself were too ignorant of etiquette to realize it at the time. That's just how the rules of etiquette around babes-in-arms work. And needless to say, to invite one member of a married couple but not the other is just about the rudest thing you can do - in most circles, quite enough to end a friendship.

IOW you had already completely stepped in it even before you went for the gold medal in tackiness and inconsideration by getting on the phone to have it out with her. And all in the name of "etiquette"! Priceless. :

Look... presumably you came to our community to get our perspective. Ask an honest question, get an honest answer. If you feel you're getting slammed, it's only because from our perspective, you are truly out of line. You seem to have wanted us to say "oh yeah, I would never do that! our husbands do as they please! she must be some kind of shrew" and you are, somewhat understandably, frustrated to hear very much the opposite.

Also bear in mind that besides being mothers, most of us are further along in the life cycle than you, and much more familiar with how these things work in general even aside from a mother's particular perspective. Indeed, many of us are closer to being the ones hosting the major family events (if not quite weddings, at least bar mitzvahs and confirmations, major holiday gatherings, etc.) than to being the young people for whom they're hosted. This may be part of why we are so unsympathetic to the appeals to your in-laws' supposed authority - as parents, we know firsthand just what kind of unsavory attitude it takes to set such arbitrary limits, and you don't look very big for going along with it. Of course, it's your own choice not to cross them if you don't want to. But you have to take responsibility for that choice, and not spread the burden of it onto third parties. "I'd love to have you, but her parents are calling the shots" won't buy you any sympathy, and not coincidentally, it also violates etiquette by airing dirty laundry. You can't have it both ways; if you're going to follow your in-laws' rules of "etiquette" (which, as I've noted, differ substantially from standard formal etiquette), then your friend and his wife are more than entitled to follow the rule of standard etiquette which is that they are under no obligation to accept exclusionary invitations.

Etiquette is supposed to be about helping people relate to each other more comfortably, you know.
This is one of the rudest posts that I have ever read. This is similiar to swatting a fly with an ax. Hardly a shining example of etiquette.
post #142 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammieg View Post

Also once and for all finally i have never tried to convince her to come, she was hurt so as a nice person i took the time to explain the reasoning
What reasoning is that, exactly? So far we haven't heard any reasons, just "that's the way it is, period."

Of course she was hurt, you sent an invitation to her family saying "this one, but not that one." And you got between her and her husband. If her husband wants to be so hurtful as to disregard her wishes, that's between him and her. Granted you already kind of set the situation up, but the last thing you need to be doing is slogging back into it, pressuring him to disregard her, or pressuring her to acquiesce in taking back seat to a buddy at a precious and sensitive time in their family life. If he's low enough to say "see ya honey, I'll be at the wedding! have fun with the diapers!" that's bad enough. But to try to convince her to be happy about it, and that she doesn't have the right to expect any better? Come on, now.

This is an usher - not your best man, not even one of the groomsmen. He's not big enough a deal to you to be more than an usher, or to cross your future in-laws over, but you're supposed to be important enough to him to cross his actual wife over?

You say she's the one who doesn't understand?
post #143 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daphneduck View Post
This is one of the rudest posts that I have ever read. This is similiar to swatting a fly with an ax. Hardly a shining example of etiquette.
Huh, Really?
I didn't think it was rude, truthful yes but not really rude.
post #144 of 154
Daphneduck, the etiquette of internet discussion and that of wedding invitations are very different. hammieg came on here inviting us to consider the proposition that his friend's wife's feelings aren't worth a damn, and that there is no limit on his right to hurt them and to incite her own husband to do the same. The argument against this obviously bogus proposition has proceeded as it deserves.
post #145 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadameXCupcake View Post
Huh, Really?
I didn't think it was rude, truthful yes but not really rude.
Well, I did.
post #146 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel View Post
Daphneduck, the etiquette of internet discussion and that of wedding invitations are very different. hammieg came on here inviting us to consider the proposition that his friend's wife's feelings aren't worth a damn, and that there is no limit on his right to hurt them and to incite her own husband to do the same. The argument against this obviously bogus proposition has proceeded as it deserves.
post #147 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel View Post
This is an usher - not your best man, not even one of the groomsmen. He's not big enough a deal to you to be more than an usher, or to cross your future in-laws over, but you're supposed to be important enough to him to cross his actual wife over?

You say she's the one who doesn't understand?
This is what I have been wondering the last three days while I watched this thread..
Why the fuss? He's not a good enough friend to be in the wedding party but you've turned it into such a big deal that he declined your invitation.

You seem quite young and things will change after you've been married a year or two. You're going to remember this one day and probably think it was pretty silly.
post #148 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daphneduck View Post
Well, I did.
Okay
post #149 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammieg View Post
Also once and for all finally i have never tried to convince her to come, she was hurt so as a nice person i took the time to explain the reasoning, it took 45 minutes as she just didn't understand it. Some of you are right it is wrong that i should call her but then she was and still is unable to be reasoned with so that is the way it's going to be.
She doesn't need to be reasoned with. She has made her decision. The only person that should even be attempting to reason with her is her husband and he never should have asked you to call her. In the future, it is advisable not to do things like this. On any issue. He can present you as "evidence" but you should not advocate to his wife on his behalf for anything. Imagine how your beloved would feel if he called her to advocate on your behalf.
post #150 of 154
Thread Starter 

Bye.

In englang it's do different...it goes groom, best man, ushers so he is in the wedding party as you call it...we do not have grooms men.

i think this will be my last message as some people are just pinning me against a wall now.

thanks for all the helpful advice.
post #151 of 154
Thread Starter 

One final thing...

I did come on here to get an opinion of course....i have not once said i haven't taken on board that it is her prerogative to decline the invite and take her husband with her...i hear that and accept it and some of the other faults i might have...this is what i came on here to understand rather than having it out with them which is what some of you seem to keep thinking i have done...some of you who attack me have clearly not read all my replies as you continue down the same line, surely it's best to get you facts straight and not fly off the handle.
post #152 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammieg View Post
In englang it's do different...it goes groom, best man, ushers so he is in the wedding party as you call it...we do not have grooms men.

i think this will be my last message as some people are just pinning me against a wall now.

thanks for all the helpful advice.
Good luck with the wedding! I'm sorry that you felt so attacked here- these discussions can become quite heated
post #153 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammieg View Post
I did come on here to get an opinion of course....i have not once said i haven't taken on board that it is her prerogative to decline the invite and take her husband with her...i hear that and accept it and some of the other faults i might have...this is what i came on here to understand rather than having it out with them which is what some of you seem to keep thinking i have done...some of you who attack me have clearly not read all my replies as you continue down the same line, surely it's best to get you facts straight and not fly off the handle.
Well, live and learn. It is what it is. I'm sure you'll have a fine wedding anyway.

What I don't quite get is what it is you're even trying to convince her of. You said it wasn't to convince her to leave her baby and come. So... to "let" her husband come? But that's between them, and now I think you probably realize that you should have told him as much. But else... what? She hasn't got to like your reasons, and as I said, it's somewhat insulting to tell her that she should. And it's never been clear what your reasons are. If we've misunderstood, it may be partly because you've described things vaguely - except that you clearly think she's a very unreasonable person, and of course as fellow mothers we strongly suspect that that's not quite fair.
post #154 of 154
Closing this thread as it has run its course.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › No Babies/Children Rule Weddings?