We agreed I would host Easter…now MIL is balking

[Anonymous]

What if the story went like this:

"We have always hosted family holidays, have been doing so for years. We really enjoy having people in our home and value being the gathering place for extended family. This year, one part of the family decided that they wanted to host Easter at their house and have everybody travel there instead. I initially agreed, but now I'm regretting it. I just don't see what the problem was at my home and I'd really like to keep up that tradition for the kids in the family as long as possible. So now I'm stuck. The other family has no obligation to come to our house, obviously. But are we obligated to all go to them all of a sudden and break the tradition?"

Point is- nobody is "right" here. If it means a lot to you to host this time, sure you can say that you won't go to MILs and to offer to host everybody. Absolutely. But it apparently means a lot to MIL to have people there. Just decide what matters more.

[Anonymous]

If they decide not to come, just offer up your home to your side of the family this Easter.

[Anonymous]

Be happy DH is clear w/your IL. You’re starting a new tradition-hosting Easter and you’ll hopefully form many happy memories. Your IL have a new tradition too where they have to realize they can’t dictate others’ choices. I’m an IL and while I love welcoming my family into my home I also love that my ‘kids’ are carrying on the family tradition of making the holiday’s special.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let your DH handle this. But absolutely stay home and cook your own meal. If MIL still refuses to come, that’s on her.

+1 and go hug your husband for not being a pushover

+2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if the story went like this:

"We have always hosted family holidays, have been doing so for years. We really enjoy having people in our home and value being the gathering place for extended family. This year, one part of the family decided that they wanted to host Easter at their house and have everybody travel there instead. I initially agreed, but now I'm regretting it. I just don't see what the problem was at my home and I'd really like to keep up that tradition for the kids in the family as long as possible. So now I'm stuck. The other family has no obligation to come to our house, obviously. But are we obligated to all go to them all of a sudden and break the tradition?"

Point is- nobody is "right" here. If it means a lot to you to host this time, sure you can say that you won't go to MILs and to offer to host everybody. Absolutely. But it apparently means a lot to MIL to have people there. Just decide what matters more.

If this was posted I would tell the poster that traditions evolve as families grow. If the in-laws insist on hosting, they can't be upset that people don't always want to travel to them and some holidays may now be apart. You can insist on hosting, or insist on being together, but not both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the story went like this:

"We have always hosted family holidays, have been doing so for years. We really enjoy having people in our home and value being the gathering place for extended family. This year, one part of the family decided that they wanted to host Easter at their house and have everybody travel there instead. I initially agreed, but now I'm regretting it. I just don't see what the problem was at my home and I'd really like to keep up that tradition for the kids in the family as long as possible. So now I'm stuck. The other family has no obligation to come to our house, obviously. But are we obligated to all go to them all of a sudden and break the tradition?"

Point is- nobody is "right" here. If it means a lot to you to host this time, sure you can say that you won't go to MILs and to offer to host everybody. Absolutely. But it apparently means a lot to MIL to have people there. Just decide what matters more.

If this was posted I would tell the poster that traditions evolve as families grow. If the in-laws insist on hosting, they can't be upset that people don't always want to travel to them and some holidays may now be apart. You can insist on hosting, or insist on being together, but not both.

The same sentiment would apply to OP, right? OP is now the one "insisting" on hosting.

Again, not saying OP is wrong or right, just that when two people want to host....they just need to work it out by deciding what matters more. And it seems like the "traveling" isn't so relevant here, as we are talking about driving two hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Be happy DH is clear w/your IL. You’re starting a new tradition-hosting Easter and you’ll hopefully form many happy memories. Your IL have a new tradition too where they have to realize they can’t dictate others’ choices. I’m an IL and while I love welcoming my family into my home I also love that my ‘kids’ are carrying on the family tradition of making the holiday’s special.

Who is the one that is dictating in this scenario? Aren't they both doing so equally, at best?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the story went like this:

"We have always hosted family holidays, have been doing so for years. We really enjoy having people in our home and value being the gathering place for extended family. This year, one part of the family decided that they wanted to host Easter at their house and have everybody travel there instead. I initially agreed, but now I'm regretting it. I just don't see what the problem was at my home and I'd really like to keep up that tradition for the kids in the family as long as possible. So now I'm stuck. The other family has no obligation to come to our house, obviously. But are we obligated to all go to them all of a sudden and break the tradition?"

Point is- nobody is "right" here. If it means a lot to you to host this time, sure you can say that you won't go to MILs and to offer to host everybody. Absolutely. But it apparently means a lot to MIL to have people there. Just decide what matters more.

If this was posted I would tell the poster that traditions evolve as families grow. If the in-laws insist on hosting, they can't be upset that people don't always want to travel to them and some holidays may now be apart. You can insist on hosting, or insist on being together, but not both.

The same sentiment would apply to OP, right? OP is now the one "insisting" on hosting.

Again, not saying OP is wrong or right, just that when two people want to host....they just need to work it out by deciding what matters more. And it seems like the "traveling" isn't so relevant here, as we are talking about driving two hours.

1. MIL/FIL agreed to OP hosting and then backed out.
2. OP has never been given the opportunity to host for that side of the family.

So yes, OP should insist on hosting, and not worry about the fact that they won’t be together.

[Anonymous]

Stop making this about “hosting.” Make it about not wanting to travel for the Easter weekend.
“We’re staying home this year. If you’d like to join us for Easter dinner, we’d love to have you.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the story went like this:

"We have always hosted family holidays, have been doing so for years. We really enjoy having people in our home and value being the gathering place for extended family. This year, one part of the family decided that they wanted to host Easter at their house and have everybody travel there instead. I initially agreed, but now I'm regretting it. I just don't see what the problem was at my home and I'd really like to keep up that tradition for the kids in the family as long as possible. So now I'm stuck. The other family has no obligation to come to our house, obviously. But are we obligated to all go to them all of a sudden and break the tradition?"

Point is- nobody is "right" here. If it means a lot to you to host this time, sure you can say that you won't go to MILs and to offer to host everybody. Absolutely. But it apparently means a lot to MIL to have people there. Just decide what matters more.

If this was posted I would tell the poster that traditions evolve as families grow. If the in-laws insist on hosting, they can't be upset that people don't always want to travel to them and some holidays may now be apart. You can insist on hosting, or insist on being together, but not both.

The same sentiment would apply to OP, right? OP is now the one "insisting" on hosting.

Again, not saying OP is wrong or right, just that when two people want to host....they just need to work it out by deciding what matters more. And it seems like the "traveling" isn't so relevant here, as we are talking about driving two hours.

Traveling is relevant here, at least for a few more years. A two hour drive with two adults in the car, having pleasant conversation or listening to music, books, etc, is a much different scene than traveling two hours with young kids, which can be a hellscape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the story went like this:

"We have always hosted family holidays, have been doing so for years. We really enjoy having people in our home and value being the gathering place for extended family. This year, one part of the family decided that they wanted to host Easter at their house and have everybody travel there instead. I initially agreed, but now I'm regretting it. I just don't see what the problem was at my home and I'd really like to keep up that tradition for the kids in the family as long as possible. So now I'm stuck. The other family has no obligation to come to our house, obviously. But are we obligated to all go to them all of a sudden and break the tradition?"

Point is- nobody is "right" here. If it means a lot to you to host this time, sure you can say that you won't go to MILs and to offer to host everybody. Absolutely. But it apparently means a lot to MIL to have people there. Just decide what matters more.

If this was posted I would tell the poster that traditions evolve as families grow. If the in-laws insist on hosting, they can't be upset that people don't always want to travel to them and some holidays may now be apart. You can insist on hosting, or insist on being together, but not both.

The same sentiment would apply to OP, right? OP is now the one "insisting" on hosting.

Again, not saying OP is wrong or right, just that when two people want to host....they just need to work it out by deciding what matters more. And it seems like the "traveling" isn't so relevant here, as we are talking about driving two hours.

1. MIL/FIL agreed to OP hosting and then backed out.
2. OP has never been given the opportunity to host for that side of the family.

So yes, OP should insist on hosting, and not worry about the fact that they won’t be together.

PP here. What I think should happen:

Everybody has a conversation where they talk about why they want to host and what matters to them. Somebody give MIL the opportunity to explain why it matters to her, and OP does the same. They do so kindly and from a place of remembering that the whole point is to create warm family memories on a holiday, understanding that not everybody's needs/desires will be met. And they either reach a collective decision, or they don't. But that is the starting place.

Possible outcomes include:
1. MIL feels heard and she hears and backs down, now more open to the change, and everybody has a nice holiday at OPs.
2. OP realizes that it matters a lot more to MIL than it does to her, and they agree to go to MIL's. And everybody has a nice holiday.
3. The conversation goes poorly and MIL either doesn't attend Easter at OP's or does so resentfully.


But let's not just skip right to option #3 by everybody getting mad at eachother and digging in that they are somehow right and the other person is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Host your own. They are free to decline.

[Anonymous]

Stay out of it with MIL. Continue with your plans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the story went like this:

"We have always hosted family holidays, have been doing so for years. We really enjoy having people in our home and value being the gathering place for extended family. This year, one part of the family decided that they wanted to host Easter at their house and have everybody travel there instead. I initially agreed, but now I'm regretting it. I just don't see what the problem was at my home and I'd really like to keep up that tradition for the kids in the family as long as possible. So now I'm stuck. The other family has no obligation to come to our house, obviously. But are we obligated to all go to them all of a sudden and break the tradition?"

Point is- nobody is "right" here. If it means a lot to you to host this time, sure you can say that you won't go to MILs and to offer to host everybody. Absolutely. But it apparently means a lot to MIL to have people there. Just decide what matters more.

If this was posted I would tell the poster that traditions evolve as families grow. If the in-laws insist on hosting, they can't be upset that people don't always want to travel to them and some holidays may now be apart. You can insist on hosting, or insist on being together, but not both.

The same sentiment would apply to OP, right? OP is now the one "insisting" on hosting.

Again, not saying OP is wrong or right, just that when two people want to host....they just need to work it out by deciding what matters more. And it seems like the "traveling" isn't so relevant here, as we are talking about driving two hours.

1. MIL/FIL agreed to OP hosting and then backed out.
2. OP has never been given the opportunity to host for that side of the family.

So yes, OP should insist on hosting, and not worry about the fact that they won’t be together.

PP here. What I think should happen:

Everybody has a conversation where they talk about why they want to host and what matters to them. Somebody give MIL the opportunity to explain why it matters to her, and OP does the same. They do so kindly and from a place of remembering that the whole point is to create warm family memories on a holiday, understanding that not everybody's needs/desires will be met. And they either reach a collective decision, or they don't. But that is the starting place.

Possible outcomes include:
1. MIL feels heard and she hears and backs down, now more open to the change, and everybody has a nice holiday at OPs.
2. OP realizes that it matters a lot more to MIL than it does to her, and they agree to go to MIL's. And everybody has a nice holiday.
3. The conversation goes poorly and MIL either doesn't attend Easter at OP's or does so resentfully.


But let's not just skip right to option #3 by everybody getting mad at eachother and digging in that they are somehow right and the other person is wrong.

Sounds like that already happened, OP planned to host and MIL agreed to go to OP’s. No need to go backwards in time to have a conversation that already occurred simply because MIL backed out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stop making this about “hosting.” Make it about not wanting to travel for the Easter weekend.
“We’re staying home this year. If you’d like to join us for Easter dinner, we’d love to have you.”

Generally I would agree with you, but hosting is the better word when including SIL. It’s multiple households coming together.