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

No Babies/Children Rule Weddings? - Page 5

post #81 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllisonR View Post
Not sure why you are confused though. He is not central to the day. He is central to his wife and new baby.

<snip>

You do not have to make an exception. No babies. Nothing wrong with that, your wedding, your choice. Your friends wife can not come with her baby. Period. But then YOU must accept the consequences of your decision, that your friend can not come, because for whatever reason, he needs to be at home, taking care of HIS wife and HIS child. You want him to chose you over his family? What kind of friend are you that would want him to do that?

<snip>

I think you ought to maybe step back and imagine that since you do not have a 4 month old, that maybe your friend is in a different place in his life than you are, and maybe you can not understand it, but you can accept it, graciously.
This.

Quote:
Originally Posted by prothyraia View Post
The problem is that there is a conflict between what YOU need/want for your wedding and what THEY need/want for their family. The no-children rule is non-negotiable for you, fine. The no-separation rule is non-negotiable for them, also fine.

<snip>

...that they just AREN'T going to come if they can't bring the baby. You may think that's stupid, you may disagree with it, but it's not your decision.

Your only choice here is whether you accept this graciously and understandingly to help preserve the friendship, or you pitch a fit and insult his wife and take it personally.
And, this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slylives View Post
I agree. A wedding is a hugely important event in someone's life. To insist that your husband missed a good friend's wedding because you're annoyed with the friend - well, I just can't imagine doing such a thing.
Where did anybody say that the usher's wife is annoyed with the OP, or that her annoyance is the reason the usher isn't going? Maybe she has PPD. Maybe this is a really high needs baby. Maybe she's only getting 3 hours sleep a night, even with his help. Maybe she had a really bad birth and is still physically in rough shape (I was nowhere near back to normal in 4 months after my 2nd c-section). Maybe he's working a lot of overtime and/or hanging out with friends a lot, and the weekend is the only break she ever gets. Maybe it's none of these things. All we know is that she won't go without the baby (neither would I) and isn't okay with her husband leaving them behind.
post #82 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post
I read this yesterday but it bothered me - why be so spiteful just because a couple doesn't invite children to a wedding - as the OP mentioned the wedding is at the home of his future in laws, chances are it is not a babyproof home. If his fiancee doesn't have a problem with the no babies/children decision then I believe that should be respected the same as the decision of the guests who cannot attend due to their children.

If I were in the place of the usher's wife I would tell him to have a great time and take a few pictures to show me after - no need for him to miss his friend's big day just as I would assume he would do the same for me if the tables were turned.
I wouldn't be like the poster you quoted, but I think it goes beyond that. The OP's posts here make it pretty obvious that he's not willing to just accept that his friend has declined. I'd be pretty upset if one of dh's friends continued to urge him to disregard my feelings in the matter. Yeah - this happens to be a wedding, but that doesn't change anything.

As for the bolded part...the OP is not respecting that his guest can't attend. That's the whole point of this thread. His friend has already declined, and the OP is getting bent about it.
post #83 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by prothyraia View Post
Why would you assume she's insisting he stay home because she's annoyed with the friend?
One of the earlier threads said that the wife had "banned" (I think the word was) her husband from going. That, to me, is suggestive of wifely annoyance! And evidently the reason the wife won;t go is that she doesn't have anyone to leave the child with (as opposed to "she needs to have her husband at home with her.") The OP wasn't entirely clear but I think it's a reasonable assumption.
post #84 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by slylives View Post
One of the earlier threads said that the wife had "banned" (I think the word was) her husband from going. That, to me, is suggestive of wifely annoyance! And evidently the reason the wife won;t go is that she doesn't have anyone to leave the child with (as opposed to "she needs to have her husband at home with her.") The OP wasn't entirely clear but I think it's a reasonable assumption.
The OP may have said the wife "banned" her husband, but that doesn't mean that's what's going on. As an example, have you never heard men accusing other men of being "whipped" or "hen pecked", because those men choose to stay home? The underlying assumption is that, of course, the man is being forced or bullied or...something. Without the potential usher weighing in himself, nobody has a clue what his wife has or hasn't said to her husband.

And, I see no conflict between not having someone to leave the baby with and needing her husband's help. If she had someone to leave the baby with, she could leave the baby. (I wouldn't, but that's a personal choice.) Since she can't leave the baby, she could very well need her husband's help. And, it's also possible the usher and/or his wife have used "can't find anyone to babysit" as a polite fiction, so they don't have to get into their own family decisions about when they're prepared to leave the baby.

I guess I just don't understand why there are people in this thread who want to assume the woman is a shrew, based on the fact that her husband's buddy doesn't like her decision.
post #85 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Orchid View Post
If it is your wedding, you and your intended need to make the decision. Your ILs can keep their own council, even if they are paying for it.

I personally, did not have any children of any age at my wedding. And I didn't invite anyone who had babies, so that wasn't an issue.

I personally would have loved an hour or two away from my DD1 when she was 4 months old, as she was a handful and always took it easy on the grandparents. So it would not be an issue for me, if I was in the usher's wife's shoes, to come without my baby for a little while.

Its YOUR wedding. You cannot possibly make everyone happy. So make yourself happy like everyone else does. They'll get over it. And if they don't, is that the kind of person you truly want to be close with in the end?
This times a million.

I know there are a lot of people on here with the school of thought that kids should always be allowed, but I think that this is a decision that the couple can and should make on their own.

If they choose to have no babies, or kids, then so be it. May it mean that I might not go? Absolutely, but I'm sure the couple has already taken that into consideration when they made the decision.
post #86 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by teale View Post
This times a million.

I know there are a lot of people on here with the school of thought that kids should always be allowed, but I think that this is a decision that the couple can and should make on their own.

If they choose to have no babies, or kids, then so be it. May it mean that I might not go? Absolutely, but I'm sure the couple has already taken that into consideration when they made the decision.
See...this is the thing. I think people can make whatever rule they want for their wedding. They can require all their guests to wear blue, or shocking pink sneakers, for all I care. But, they also have to take it graciously when people decline, for whatever reason. That's where I think the OP is falling down. He doesn't seem to have taken into consideration that limiting the guest list...limits the guest list.

I personally wouldn't go to a child-free wedding, except for one or two very special people. That's my choice. If people want me there badly enough to throw a fit if I don't go, then they can accommodate me. If they don't want to accommodate me, they don't need to throw a fit if I choose not to attend.

I truly don't understand why this always becomes so contentious on both sides.
post #87 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
The OP may have said the wife "banned" her husband, but that doesn't mean that's what's going on.

I guess I just don't understand why there are people in this thread who want to assume the woman is a shrew, based on the fact that her husband's buddy doesn't like her decision.

Firstly, I find posts to be more helpful when they respond to what the OP actually posted, and not what the poster seems to think is going on behind the scenes. I took the OP at face value. He said the wife banned her husband. In the absence of evidence to suggest otherwise, the wife banned her husband.

Secondly, no-one has called her a shrew. Unreasonable, perhaps. But no name-calling.
post #88 of 154
Quote:
See...this is the thing. I think people can make whatever rule they want for their wedding. They can require all their guests to wear blue, or shocking pink sneakers, for all I care. But, they also have to take it graciously when people decline, for whatever reason. That's where I think the OP is falling down. He doesn't seem to have taken into consideration that limiting the guest list...limits the guest list.
That's an annoyance for me too. Couple who limit the guest list, but then cry foul when people decline for obvious reasons. If you limit the guest list, then be prepared for their to be extra room at the venue.

Unfortunately, some people believe that their wedding should be the most important thing in everyone's life, and don't get that some people have much different priorities.
post #89 of 154
Quote:
you should stop badgering her about it.
Absolutely. She has a young baby. What if she has postpartum depression and really needs someone there? What if she still hasn't recovered from the birth? You have no business trying to convince her otherwise.
post #90 of 154
Everyone is within their rights here. I am assuming that your future ILs are putting in a hefty chunk of the $$$ to get a say in things, so it is their right to say no kids. It is your friend's wife's right to say that she doesn't want him to go if she and the baby can't go. And you're friend's right to say he can't if the baby can't.

No one is being childish. Childish would be showing up with an uninvited baby.

The mature thing to do is accept their regrets and move on with your life and let them move on with theirs.
post #91 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
I guess I just don't understand why there are people in this thread who want to assume the woman is a shrew, based on the fact that her husband's buddy doesn't like her decision.
:

I'm often shocked at threads on this forum where in similar situations the woman is painted to be a master manipulator, immature, crazy, etc etc. Why are we (mostly women) so quick to paint other women in this light? Why is it immature or selfish of her to need her husband to help care for their child? Why is it only HER job and why should someone's wedding trump a family's needs at such a critical time?
post #92 of 154
There are, quite frankly, millions of women who would probably decline to attend your wedding under the circumstances. It would not be something they wish to attend. There are also millions of men who would decline to attend your wedding under the circumstances.

Wedding invites get declined all the time all around the world every single day. Yes, the bridal party is nominally more important than a generic guest, but I don't see how you could really consider anyone but bride and groom "central" to the wedding. (My husbands best friend, who he asked to be the best man, could not attend our wedding. He was already booked to leave for a foreign country for study, leaving about 3 days before our wedding. (And he was going quite rural traveling for anthropology, so there was no "fly back for the wedding" option; and we did NOT ever suggest that he change his plans for OUR day). He's a lovely guy, and I still think he's great, but he declined to be the best man. Totally fine.)

You asked your friend, he declined, and that's pretty much it. If I were him, or his wife, I would have asked about the baby situation to check, said "okay, thanks for letting us know. We'll need to look into our schedules and finances and such, of course. We'll let you know ASAP." A few days later we would have politely declined, and not given you a specific reason either, because it's extremely rude to ask for one! "No, I'm very sorry, but our situation currently just does not allow it," and sent along a nice gift, maybe something for a friend to read at the wedding in our stead/something for you to read before the wedding, etc.

You don't have to like his wife, or his decision, or let it affect your "close friendship" with the man. But you do have to move on. You have to accept that other people's decisions are NOT your business at all!

I have no idea what's with the rationalizations on why the wife might not want to go sans teeny tiny infant, or have hubby go without her, and might have PPD, and blah blah blah. The tone of the OP would irritate me enough to "ban" DH from going bc it's very possessive IMO (and I'm poly, so I share DH well!). Maybe they don't want to spend the cash? Maybe they already have a full schedule? Maybe the guy doesn't care about you as much as you think he should? So what?

As for the MIL/FIL paying for the wedding; I wouldn't personally have stood for it in my own wedding, but I can see why you would. Having a child-friendly wedding is not as important to you as pleasing your future in-laws. Totally reasonable IMO. Being at your wedding is not as important to the guy as being with his wife and baby. That's totally reasonable too.
post #93 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by slylives View Post
Firstly, I find posts to be more helpful when they respond to what the OP actually posted, and not what the poster seems to think is going on behind the scenes. I took the OP at face value. He said the wife banned her husband. In the absence of evidence to suggest otherwise, the wife banned her husband.
But, the OP never provided anything to say that she banned him, except an opinion. We don't know what's going on behind the scenes, and neither does the OP. If he were talking about something his wife told him, that's one thing - but he's not. He's reporting the situation as he sees it, or as he was told second-hand.

Quote:
Secondly, no-one has called her a shrew. Unreasonable, perhaps. But no name-calling.
I never said anybody called her a shrew. I said people are assuming she is one, and that's the vibe I'm getting.

Why are we assuming, with no evidence, that she's banned her husband because she's annoyed? Where does anything in this thread say that?
post #94 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammieg View Post
Sorry for the intrusion to the forum as I do not have a baby myself however one of my ushers does and it is causing some extreme friction!

The story is that my future-in-laws have stuck to the rules as were applied to them when they had children and also what frankly my future wife and I have encountered at 90% of the weddings we have attended. I of course would like to be flexible but the inlaws are not bending on this rule which i respect as being their right no matter how a feel about it.

This though has really upset my ushers wife as it would preclude her attending the wedding as she is unable to leave her 4 month old baby with anyone so she can come along. I have spent about 45 mins talking to her explaining she is not the only one with this problem and I'm so sad that it can't be any other way but it appears to not have appeased her one bit. The result is she has told one of my closest friends that he can't go even though he is supposed to be ushing for me.

What i want to understand is is this a fair reaction because it will damage a relationship one way or the other?
I haven't read all the replies so I'm sorry if this has been hashed out already. The bolded part above is what bothered me. A woman, even a wife, can't make a grown man "not go" somewhere. I think husbands, men in general, society often use this excuse and it is insulting to women. When my DH says "the wife won't let me go" even jokingly I get upset. This paints the woman as a dictator. I hate that. If he isn't going it is because he made that choice given a (private) discussion with his wife.

As far as the no-kids rule: is this really how 90% of weddings are? Definitely not in my family. What is a wedding without cute kids in their finery? Either way to me a 4 month old does not "count" as "kids." A nursling is a physical extension of mom IMO. However, I would decline without angst (and expecting none in return) if that was what the bridal party wanted.

But as a whole issue: why are we (general we) excluding children from life events? I feel like maybe the age-segregation of public schooling is leaking into our society. My church has a nursery that my dd is expected to be in - she would literally never worship with DH and I until she was 18 they way they do it. I just don't get it. A wild and crazy reception I can see but not a wedding - a wedding is a cultural ritual that children can benefit from.
post #95 of 154
You have the right to exclude members of your friend's family from your wedding.

He has the right to decline to come without them.

You didn't want his whole family. You wanted to pick and choose. He decided he didn't want to take part on your terms. It's your wedding and you have the right to dictate the terms but you don't have the right to get mad at people who opt out.
post #96 of 154
Any time you send an invitation that excludes family members, you risk getting turned down by the entire family. If they don't want to be divided on your terms, even for an afternoon, that's absolutely their prerogative. The wife won't come without the baby. That's her prerogative, and the details of her feeding, childcare, etc. arrangements are none of your business. She hasn't got to justify it to you. The husband isn't coming without the wife. Even if she has no good reason (and she probably does) and she really is a controlling shrew (we have no reason to think that she is, other than that you, a man with no experience of marriage, have chosen to put that spin on it), that's STILL none of your business. You don't get to pry into other people's relationships to try to persuade them to put you above their own spouse, even for an afternoon.

Between that, and the thing with the in-laws and their money, I think you have a lot to learn about marriage.

Let me break it down for you:

Wife trumps buddies.

Baby trumps buddies.

Wife plus baby, vs. buddies? Fuggedaboutit.

Husband trumps parents AND their precious money. (I'm sorry, in what book of high class English etiquette is it written that they get to be vulgarly controlling?) You got yourself a ticking time bomb, right there. Good luck.
post #97 of 154
WORD, Galatea!
post #98 of 154
I have to agree. I have been watching this thread. The idea that he is bowing to his IL's is a bad omen. Bad? Oh yeah, good luck.

The idea that he doesn't get babies and parents? Eh, I call that naive. He'll get it someday, if his IL's let him procreate.
post #99 of 154
He isn't coming if you don't let them bring the baby. You don't want to do that.
You say I'm sorry to hear you can't come, find a new usher and move on with your wedding/life. Simple as that. Don't make it a big deal.

I don't know what role ushers play in weddings where you are but here it is rather minor... they direct people to seating. Hardly central to the wedding or reception.
post #100 of 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlyzombiecat View Post
I don't know what role ushers play in weddings where you are but here it is rather minor... they direct people to seating. Hardly central to the wedding or reception.
Gosh and when you put it that way, hardly worth causing so much stress for the couple (Mom & Dad) not to mention a newborn. I'm wondering what the alternative is to just accepting it?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › No Babies/Children Rule Weddings?