In-laws are mad that we are inviting others to Christmas dinner. How to resolve this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe they have social anxiety, or are afraid of strangers, or are worried about germs from kids. Why brush all that off like its nothing?

These days you can't be too sure. People are still limiting their gatherings to small groups, not traveling, avoiding indoor parties, etc.

If the inlaws had said it was social anxiety or fear of germs, then I assume that would've been in the OP. But maybe OP can clarify. OP, did the inlaws specify whether they were uncomfortable with the neighbors because of a social anxiety disorder or covid fears or lizard people?

In the OP: "I told them that I invited our neighbor and they pitched a fit. They totally flipped out about inviting him and said that this isn't a soup kitchen."

OP was pretty clear about why the parents didn't want the neighbors there. It wasn't for germs. It was because they have soup kitchen cooties.

Why would OPs in-laws make a connection between soup kitchens and needy neighbors when OP insists she never mentioned helping them? Kind of weird.

I think it makes sense. If OP said "we invited the neighbors because they didn't have anywhere else to go on Christmas," I can see the inlaws saying "this isn't a soup kitchen" in response. I mean, I actually can't because who says that, but I guess it tracks. It doesn't mean OP had to have told the inlaws that they were helping the neighbors otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s there to resolve? They can either come or not.

Exactly. I wouldn’t disinvite over this, but would immediately step in if they make inappropriate comments (personally I think this is unlikely).

+1. They need to get over themselves.

And, well done, OP, for demonstrating the WWJD lifestyle.

Yes, this is just the spirit to honor thy mother and father according to the Commandments like all good Christians do. Sounds like cafeteria Christianity.

Inviting people to Christmas isn’t dishonoring your mother and father so I don’t even know what point you are trying to make here.

It's pretty obvious. The in-laws have said this plan makes them uncomfortable. And rather than work with them to make them comfortable and keep everyone happy the only acceptable solution is to take a hard stance, tell the in-laws to just stay home, and pat yourself on the back for being such a loving Christian who brags about their charity to others. Who cares about the people who raised the husband after all?

The in-laws can act like grownups for one meal. Or they can make other plans. Their choice.

Yes, make the houseguests uncomfortable. That's the holiday spirit.

The houseguests are making themselves uncomfortable.

A good host makes all their guests comfortable.

Within reason. Better yet, a good host gives all their guests the opportunity to be comfortable. But a good host will not sacrifice the comfort of one guest for the comfort of another. OP's neighbors aren't asking for the inlaws to be disinvited -- the inlaws are declaring that they will not allow themselves to be comfortable if the neighbors are there.

Is the answer to disinvite the in-laws? I thought invites could not be rescinded?

Of course invitations can be rescinded - I'm not the PP that said they couldn't. You shouldn't rescind invitations except in extreme circumstances, but declaring that another guest is unwelcome certainly qualifies. The answer is to inform the in laws that the neighbors are OPs guests, and if they can't treat the neighbors with kindness, or if they truly feel that they cannot enjoy themselves if the neighbors are there, then the in laws should stay home.

The bait and switch is a raw deal for in-laws who made travel plans under the guise of a small and intimate family Christmas.

OP never said this.

It's in the OP. In-laws wanted to know who the extra people were. They were not expecting others at this small gathering.

OP never invited the in laws under any guise of a small and intimate family Christmas. That’s just flat out false. She told them she would like to host Christmas and that it will be 13 people. She is telling this all to them nearly a month in advance. You are painting a completely false picture here to suggest somehow OP is in the wrong planning the guest list for her own dinner! It’s absurd.

Here is what OP actually said, you don't get to make up your own facts:

"I told my in laws today that it will be 13 people for Christmas dinner. They wanted to know where the extra people were coming from"

Where did the in-laws get the idea "extra" people were coming? Clearly the number wasn't 13 before. OP invited the family then added the neighbors after.

Sounds like in laws made assumptions. No evidence that OP ever promised a “small and intimate family Christmas.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe they have social anxiety, or are afraid of strangers, or are worried about germs from kids. Why brush all that off like its nothing?

These days you can't be too sure. People are still limiting their gatherings to small groups, not traveling, avoiding indoor parties, etc.

If the inlaws had said it was social anxiety or fear of germs, then I assume that would've been in the OP. But maybe OP can clarify. OP, did the inlaws specify whether they were uncomfortable with the neighbors because of a social anxiety disorder or covid fears or lizard people?

In the OP: "I told them that I invited our neighbor and they pitched a fit. They totally flipped out about inviting him and said that this isn't a soup kitchen."

OP was pretty clear about why the parents didn't want the neighbors there. It wasn't for germs. It was because they have soup kitchen cooties.

Why would OPs in-laws make a connection between soup kitchens and needy neighbors when OP insists she never mentioned helping them? Kind of weird.

I think it makes sense. If OP said "we invited the neighbors because they didn't have anywhere else to go on Christmas," I can see the inlaws saying "this isn't a soup kitchen" in response. I mean, I actually can't because who says that, but I guess it tracks. It doesn't mean OP had to have told the inlaws that they were helping the neighbors otherwise.

Well later OP says the in-laws said if they wanted to eat with strangers they would go to a restaurant. Supposedly, they said both things or maybe the soup kitchen was just an embellishment. I would think it odd that the in-laws would presume someone who doesn't have family nearby is poor enough to need a soup kitchen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe they have social anxiety, or are afraid of strangers, or are worried about germs from kids. Why brush all that off like its nothing?

These days you can't be too sure. People are still limiting their gatherings to small groups, not traveling, avoiding indoor parties, etc.

If the inlaws had said it was social anxiety or fear of germs, then I assume that would've been in the OP. But maybe OP can clarify. OP, did the inlaws specify whether they were uncomfortable with the neighbors because of a social anxiety disorder or covid fears or lizard people?

In the OP: "I told them that I invited our neighbor and they pitched a fit. They totally flipped out about inviting him and said that this isn't a soup kitchen."

OP was pretty clear about why the parents didn't want the neighbors there. It wasn't for germs. It was because they have soup kitchen cooties.

Why would OPs in-laws make a connection between soup kitchens and needy neighbors when OP insists she never mentioned helping them? Kind of weird.

I think it makes sense. If OP said "we invited the neighbors because they didn't have anywhere else to go on Christmas," I can see the inlaws saying "this isn't a soup kitchen" in response. I mean, I actually can't because who says that, but I guess it tracks. It doesn't mean OP had to have told the inlaws that they were helping the neighbors otherwise.

Well later OP says the in-laws said if they wanted to eat with strangers they would go to a restaurant. Supposedly, they said both things or maybe the soup kitchen was just an embellishment. I would think it odd that the in-laws would presume someone who doesn't have family nearby is poor enough to need a soup kitchen.

I think the inlaws were referencing the fact that soup kitchens take people with no where else to go, not the fact that soup kitchens serve primarily low-income people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s there to resolve? They can either come or not.

Exactly. I wouldn’t disinvite over this, but would immediately step in if they make inappropriate comments (personally I think this is unlikely).

+1. They need to get over themselves.

And, well done, OP, for demonstrating the WWJD lifestyle.

Yes, this is just the spirit to honor thy mother and father according to the Commandments like all good Christians do. Sounds like cafeteria Christianity.

Inviting people to Christmas isn’t dishonoring your mother and father so I don’t even know what point you are trying to make here.

It's pretty obvious. The in-laws have said this plan makes them uncomfortable. And rather than work with them to make them comfortable and keep everyone happy the only acceptable solution is to take a hard stance, tell the in-laws to just stay home, and pat yourself on the back for being such a loving Christian who brags about their charity to others. Who cares about the people who raised the husband after all?

The in-laws can act like grownups for one meal. Or they can make other plans. Their choice.

Yes, make the houseguests uncomfortable. That's the holiday spirit.

The houseguests are making themselves uncomfortable.

A good host makes all their guests comfortable.

Within reason. Better yet, a good host gives all their guests the opportunity to be comfortable. But a good host will not sacrifice the comfort of one guest for the comfort of another. OP's neighbors aren't asking for the inlaws to be disinvited -- the inlaws are declaring that they will not allow themselves to be comfortable if the neighbors are there.

Is the answer to disinvite the in-laws? I thought invites could not be rescinded?

Of course invitations can be rescinded - I'm not the PP that said they couldn't. You shouldn't rescind invitations except in extreme circumstances, but declaring that another guest is unwelcome certainly qualifies. The answer is to inform the in laws that the neighbors are OPs guests, and if they can't treat the neighbors with kindness, or if they truly feel that they cannot enjoy themselves if the neighbors are there, then the in laws should stay home.

The bait and switch is a raw deal for in-laws who made travel plans under the guise of a small and intimate family Christmas.

OP never said this.

It's in the OP. In-laws wanted to know who the extra people were. They were not expecting others at this small gathering.

OP never invited the in laws under any guise of a small and intimate family Christmas. That’s just flat out false. She told them she would like to host Christmas and that it will be 13 people. She is telling this all to them nearly a month in advance. You are painting a completely false picture here to suggest somehow OP is in the wrong planning the guest list for her own dinner! It’s absurd.

Here is what OP actually said, you don't get to make up your own facts:

"I told my in laws today that it will be 13 people for Christmas dinner. They wanted to know where the extra people were coming from"

Where did the in-laws get the idea "extra" people were coming? Clearly the number wasn't 13 before. OP invited the family then added the neighbors after.

That doesn't mean that OP pitched this as an "intimate, family only Christmas dinner." It means that before, the guest list was shorter and consisted of only family. There was no representation from the OP that they intended it to stay intimate and family-only.

And guess what? Even if OP did say "In-laws, please come to our intimate, family-only Christmas dinner" and then invited the neighbors, that would STILL be ok. The circumstances had changed: OP became aware that the neighbors had nowhere to go on Christmas and accommodated her plans accordingly. They're the hosts, and that's well within their rights to do so.

Maybe they have social anxiety, or are afraid of strangers, or are worried about germs from kids. Why brush all that off like its nothing?

The in laws threw a fit and said a lot of things, but none of it was about social anxiety or germs. Why make assumptions that aren’t in the post? The parents seem quite capable of expressing themselves to their daughter in law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe they have social anxiety, or are afraid of strangers, or are worried about germs from kids. Why brush all that off like its nothing?

These days you can't be too sure. People are still limiting their gatherings to small groups, not traveling, avoiding indoor parties, etc.

If the inlaws had said it was social anxiety or fear of germs, then I assume that would've been in the OP. But maybe OP can clarify. OP, did the inlaws specify whether they were uncomfortable with the neighbors because of a social anxiety disorder or covid fears or lizard people?

In the OP: "I told them that I invited our neighbor and they pitched a fit. They totally flipped out about inviting him and said that this isn't a soup kitchen."

OP was pretty clear about why the parents didn't want the neighbors there. It wasn't for germs. It was because they have soup kitchen cooties.

Why would OPs in-laws make a connection between soup kitchens and needy neighbors when OP insists she never mentioned helping them? Kind of weird.

I think it makes sense. If OP said "we invited the neighbors because they didn't have anywhere else to go on Christmas," I can see the inlaws saying "this isn't a soup kitchen" in response. I mean, I actually can't because who says that, but I guess it tracks. It doesn't mean OP had to have told the inlaws that they were helping the neighbors otherwise.

Well later OP says the in-laws said if they wanted to eat with strangers they would go to a restaurant. Supposedly, they said both things or maybe the soup kitchen was just an embellishment. I would think it odd that the in-laws would presume someone who doesn't have family nearby is poor enough to need a soup kitchen.

I think the inlaws were referencing the fact that soup kitchens take people with no where else to go, not the fact that soup kitchens serve primarily low-income people.

The neighbor is not homeless, he has a home with kids to go to. Money is a little tight, that's all we know about him. We don't even know that he has no other family or options, he simply missed a big Christmas. Lots of people say that because they are grown, grandparents may be dead, cousins scattered, etc. But they don't end up at soup kitchens

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe they have social anxiety, or are afraid of strangers, or are worried about germs from kids. Why brush all that off like its nothing?

These days you can't be too sure. People are still limiting their gatherings to small groups, not traveling, avoiding indoor parties, etc.

If the inlaws had said it was social anxiety or fear of germs, then I assume that would've been in the OP. But maybe OP can clarify. OP, did the inlaws specify whether they were uncomfortable with the neighbors because of a social anxiety disorder or covid fears or lizard people?

In the OP: "I told them that I invited our neighbor and they pitched a fit. They totally flipped out about inviting him and said that this isn't a soup kitchen."

OP was pretty clear about why the parents didn't want the neighbors there. It wasn't for germs. It was because they have soup kitchen cooties.

Why would OPs in-laws make a connection between soup kitchens and needy neighbors when OP insists she never mentioned helping them? Kind of weird.

I think it makes sense. If OP said "we invited the neighbors because they didn't have anywhere else to go on Christmas," I can see the inlaws saying "this isn't a soup kitchen" in response. I mean, I actually can't because who says that, but I guess it tracks. It doesn't mean OP had to have told the inlaws that they were helping the neighbors otherwise.

Well later OP says the in-laws said if they wanted to eat with strangers they would go to a restaurant. Supposedly, they said both things or maybe the soup kitchen was just an embellishment. I would think it odd that the in-laws would presume someone who doesn't have family nearby is poor enough to need a soup kitchen.

I think the inlaws were referencing the fact that soup kitchens take people with no where else to go, not the fact that soup kitchens serve primarily low-income people.

The neighbor is not homeless, he has a home with kids to go to. Money is a little tight, that's all we know about him. We don't even know that he has no other family or options, he simply missed a big Christmas. Lots of people say that because they are grown, grandparents may be dead, cousins scattered, etc. But they don't end up at soup kitchens

Well, if the inlaws decide not to go to OP's house for Christmas dinner, you can invite them and ask them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s there to resolve? They can either come or not.

Exactly. I wouldn’t disinvite over this, but would immediately step in if they make inappropriate comments (personally I think this is unlikely).

+1. They need to get over themselves.

And, well done, OP, for demonstrating the WWJD lifestyle.

Yes, this is just the spirit to honor thy mother and father according to the Commandments like all good Christians do. Sounds like cafeteria Christianity.

Inviting people to Christmas isn’t dishonoring your mother and father so I don’t even know what point you are trying to make here.

It's pretty obvious. The in-laws have said this plan makes them uncomfortable. And rather than work with them to make them comfortable and keep everyone happy the only acceptable solution is to take a hard stance, tell the in-laws to just stay home, and pat yourself on the back for being such a loving Christian who brags about their charity to others. Who cares about the people who raised the husband after all?

The in-laws can act like grownups for one meal. Or they can make other plans. Their choice.

Yes, make the houseguests uncomfortable. That's the holiday spirit.

The houseguests are making themselves uncomfortable.

A good host makes all their guests comfortable.

Within reason. Better yet, a good host gives all their guests the opportunity to be comfortable. But a good host will not sacrifice the comfort of one guest for the comfort of another. OP's neighbors aren't asking for the inlaws to be disinvited -- the inlaws are declaring that they will not allow themselves to be comfortable if the neighbors are there.

Is the answer to disinvite the in-laws? I thought invites could not be rescinded?

Of course invitations can be rescinded - I'm not the PP that said they couldn't. You shouldn't rescind invitations except in extreme circumstances, but declaring that another guest is unwelcome certainly qualifies. The answer is to inform the in laws that the neighbors are OPs guests, and if they can't treat the neighbors with kindness, or if they truly feel that they cannot enjoy themselves if the neighbors are there, then the in laws should stay home.

The bait and switch is a raw deal for in-laws who made travel plans under the guise of a small and intimate family Christmas.

OP never said this.

It's in the OP. In-laws wanted to know who the extra people were. They were not expecting others at this small gathering.

OP never invited the in laws under any guise of a small and intimate family Christmas. That’s just flat out false. She told them she would like to host Christmas and that it will be 13 people. She is telling this all to them nearly a month in advance. You are painting a completely false picture here to suggest somehow OP is in the wrong planning the guest list for her own dinner! It’s absurd.

Here is what OP actually said, you don't get to make up your own facts:

"I told my in laws today that it will be 13 people for Christmas dinner. They wanted to know where the extra people were coming from"

Where did the in-laws get the idea "extra" people were coming? Clearly the number wasn't 13 before. OP invited the family then added the neighbors after.

That doesn't mean that OP pitched this as an "intimate, family only Christmas dinner." It means that before, the guest list was shorter and consisted of only family. There was no representation from the OP that they intended it to stay intimate and family-only.

And guess what? Even if OP did say "In-laws, please come to our intimate, family-only Christmas dinner" and then invited the neighbors, that would STILL be ok. The circumstances had changed: OP became aware that the neighbors had nowhere to go on Christmas and accommodated her plans accordingly. They're the hosts, and that's well within their rights to do so.

Maybe they have social anxiety, or are afraid of strangers, or are worried about germs from kids. Why brush all that off like its nothing?

The in laws threw a fit and said a lot of things, but none of it was about social anxiety or germs. Why make assumptions that aren’t in the post? The parents seem quite capable of expressing themselves to their daughter in law.

How do you know? They said a lot of things but all we know is 1) soup kitchens and 2) eating with strangers is like a restaurant. That's not a lot of things. Maybe OP left some details out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s there to resolve? They can either come or not.

Exactly. I wouldn’t disinvite over this, but would immediately step in if they make inappropriate comments (personally I think this is unlikely).

+1. They need to get over themselves.

And, well done, OP, for demonstrating the WWJD lifestyle.

Yes, this is just the spirit to honor thy mother and father according to the Commandments like all good Christians do. Sounds like cafeteria Christianity.

Inviting people to Christmas isn’t dishonoring your mother and father so I don’t even know what point you are trying to make here.

It's pretty obvious. The in-laws have said this plan makes them uncomfortable. And rather than work with them to make them comfortable and keep everyone happy the only acceptable solution is to take a hard stance, tell the in-laws to just stay home, and pat yourself on the back for being such a loving Christian who brags about their charity to others. Who cares about the people who raised the husband after all?

The in-laws can act like grownups for one meal. Or they can make other plans. Their choice.

Yes, make the houseguests uncomfortable. That's the holiday spirit.

The houseguests are making themselves uncomfortable.

A good host makes all their guests comfortable.

Within reason. Better yet, a good host gives all their guests the opportunity to be comfortable. But a good host will not sacrifice the comfort of one guest for the comfort of another. OP's neighbors aren't asking for the inlaws to be disinvited -- the inlaws are declaring that they will not allow themselves to be comfortable if the neighbors are there.

Is the answer to disinvite the in-laws? I thought invites could not be rescinded?

Of course invitations can be rescinded - I'm not the PP that said they couldn't. You shouldn't rescind invitations except in extreme circumstances, but declaring that another guest is unwelcome certainly qualifies. The answer is to inform the in laws that the neighbors are OPs guests, and if they can't treat the neighbors with kindness, or if they truly feel that they cannot enjoy themselves if the neighbors are there, then the in laws should stay home.

The bait and switch is a raw deal for in-laws who made travel plans under the guise of a small and intimate family Christmas.

OP never said this.

It's in the OP. In-laws wanted to know who the extra people were. They were not expecting others at this small gathering.

OP never invited the in laws under any guise of a small and intimate family Christmas. That’s just flat out false. She told them she would like to host Christmas and that it will be 13 people. She is telling this all to them nearly a month in advance. You are painting a completely false picture here to suggest somehow OP is in the wrong planning the guest list for her own dinner! It’s absurd.

Here is what OP actually said, you don't get to make up your own facts:

"I told my in laws today that it will be 13 people for Christmas dinner. They wanted to know where the extra people were coming from"

Where did the in-laws get the idea "extra" people were coming? Clearly the number wasn't 13 before. OP invited the family then added the neighbors after.

That doesn't mean that OP pitched this as an "intimate, family only Christmas dinner." It means that before, the guest list was shorter and consisted of only family. There was no representation from the OP that they intended it to stay intimate and family-only.

And guess what? Even if OP did say "In-laws, please come to our intimate, family-only Christmas dinner" and then invited the neighbors, that would STILL be ok. The circumstances had changed: OP became aware that the neighbors had nowhere to go on Christmas and accommodated her plans accordingly. They're the hosts, and that's well within their rights to do so.

Maybe they have social anxiety, or are afraid of strangers, or are worried about germs from kids. Why brush all that off like its nothing?

The in laws threw a fit and said a lot of things, but none of it was about social anxiety or germs. Why make assumptions that aren’t in the post? The parents seem quite capable of expressing themselves to their daughter in law.

How do you know? They said a lot of things but all we know is 1) soup kitchens and 2) eating with strangers is like a restaurant. That's not a lot of things. Maybe OP left some details out?

There is no point to speculating about details we don't have access too. We only have the info we have. We could spend a lot of time coming up with crazy conspiracy theories, but what's the point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe they have social anxiety, or are afraid of strangers, or are worried about germs from kids. Why brush all that off like its nothing?

These days you can't be too sure. People are still limiting their gatherings to small groups, not traveling, avoiding indoor parties, etc.

If the inlaws had said it was social anxiety or fear of germs, then I assume that would've been in the OP. But maybe OP can clarify. OP, did the inlaws specify whether they were uncomfortable with the neighbors because of a social anxiety disorder or covid fears or lizard people?

In the OP: "I told them that I invited our neighbor and they pitched a fit. They totally flipped out about inviting him and said that this isn't a soup kitchen."

OP was pretty clear about why the parents didn't want the neighbors there. It wasn't for germs. It was because they have soup kitchen cooties.

Why would OPs in-laws make a connection between soup kitchens and needy neighbors when OP insists she never mentioned helping them? Kind of weird.

I think it makes sense. If OP said "we invited the neighbors because they didn't have anywhere else to go on Christmas," I can see the inlaws saying "this isn't a soup kitchen" in response. I mean, I actually can't because who says that, but I guess it tracks. It doesn't mean OP had to have told the inlaws that they were helping the neighbors otherwise.

Well later OP says the in-laws said if they wanted to eat with strangers they would go to a restaurant. Supposedly, they said both things or maybe the soup kitchen was just an embellishment. I would think it odd that the in-laws would presume someone who doesn't have family nearby is poor enough to need a soup kitchen.

I think the inlaws were referencing the fact that soup kitchens take people with no where else to go, not the fact that soup kitchens serve primarily low-income people.

The neighbor is not homeless, he has a home with kids to go to. Money is a little tight, that's all we know about him. We don't even know that he has no other family or options, he simply missed a big Christmas. Lots of people say that because they are grown, grandparents may be dead, cousins scattered, etc. But they don't end up at soup kitchens

Well, if the inlaws decide not to go to OP's house for Christmas dinner, you can invite them and ask them.

Obviously they'll be at a soup kitchen, since they have nowhere else to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s there to resolve? They can either come or not.

Exactly. I wouldn’t disinvite over this, but would immediately step in if they make inappropriate comments (personally I think this is unlikely).

+1. They need to get over themselves.

And, well done, OP, for demonstrating the WWJD lifestyle.

Yes, this is just the spirit to honor thy mother and father according to the Commandments like all good Christians do. Sounds like cafeteria Christianity.

Inviting people to Christmas isn’t dishonoring your mother and father so I don’t even know what point you are trying to make here.

It's pretty obvious. The in-laws have said this plan makes them uncomfortable. And rather than work with them to make them comfortable and keep everyone happy the only acceptable solution is to take a hard stance, tell the in-laws to just stay home, and pat yourself on the back for being such a loving Christian who brags about their charity to others. Who cares about the people who raised the husband after all?

The in-laws can act like grownups for one meal. Or they can make other plans. Their choice.

Yes, make the houseguests uncomfortable. That's the holiday spirit.

The houseguests are making themselves uncomfortable.

A good host makes all their guests comfortable.

Within reason. Better yet, a good host gives all their guests the opportunity to be comfortable. But a good host will not sacrifice the comfort of one guest for the comfort of another. OP's neighbors aren't asking for the inlaws to be disinvited -- the inlaws are declaring that they will not allow themselves to be comfortable if the neighbors are there.

Is the answer to disinvite the in-laws? I thought invites could not be rescinded?

Of course invitations can be rescinded - I'm not the PP that said they couldn't. You shouldn't rescind invitations except in extreme circumstances, but declaring that another guest is unwelcome certainly qualifies. The answer is to inform the in laws that the neighbors are OPs guests, and if they can't treat the neighbors with kindness, or if they truly feel that they cannot enjoy themselves if the neighbors are there, then the in laws should stay home.

The bait and switch is a raw deal for in-laws who made travel plans under the guise of a small and intimate family Christmas.

OP never said this.

It's in the OP. In-laws wanted to know who the extra people were. They were not expecting others at this small gathering.

OP never invited the in laws under any guise of a small and intimate family Christmas. That’s just flat out false. She told them she would like to host Christmas and that it will be 13 people. She is telling this all to them nearly a month in advance. You are painting a completely false picture here to suggest somehow OP is in the wrong planning the guest list for her own dinner! It’s absurd.

Here is what OP actually said, you don't get to make up your own facts:

"I told my in laws today that it will be 13 people for Christmas dinner. They wanted to know where the extra people were coming from"

Where did the in-laws get the idea "extra" people were coming? Clearly the number wasn't 13 before. OP invited the family then added the neighbors after.

That doesn't mean that OP pitched this as an "intimate, family only Christmas dinner." It means that before, the guest list was shorter and consisted of only family. There was no representation from the OP that they intended it to stay intimate and family-only.

And guess what? Even if OP did say "In-laws, please come to our intimate, family-only Christmas dinner" and then invited the neighbors, that would STILL be ok. The circumstances had changed: OP became aware that the neighbors had nowhere to go on Christmas and accommodated her plans accordingly. They're the hosts, and that's well within their rights to do so.

Maybe they have social anxiety, or are afraid of strangers, or are worried about germs from kids. Why brush all that off like its nothing?

The in laws threw a fit and said a lot of things, but none of it was about social anxiety or germs. Why make assumptions that aren’t in the post? The parents seem quite capable of expressing themselves to their daughter in law.

How do you know? They said a lot of things but all we know is 1) soup kitchens and 2) eating with strangers is like a restaurant. That's not a lot of things. Maybe OP left some details out?

There is no point to speculating about details we don't have access too. We only have the info we have. We could spend a lot of time coming up with crazy conspiracy theories, but what's the point?

That's pretty much why this site exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe they have social anxiety, or are afraid of strangers, or are worried about germs from kids. Why brush all that off like its nothing?

These days you can't be too sure. People are still limiting their gatherings to small groups, not traveling, avoiding indoor parties, etc.

If the inlaws had said it was social anxiety or fear of germs, then I assume that would've been in the OP. But maybe OP can clarify. OP, did the inlaws specify whether they were uncomfortable with the neighbors because of a social anxiety disorder or covid fears or lizard people?

In the OP: "I told them that I invited our neighbor and they pitched a fit. They totally flipped out about inviting him and said that this isn't a soup kitchen."

OP was pretty clear about why the parents didn't want the neighbors there. It wasn't for germs. It was because they have soup kitchen cooties.

Why would OPs in-laws make a connection between soup kitchens and needy neighbors when OP insists she never mentioned helping them? Kind of weird.

I think it makes sense. If OP said "we invited the neighbors because they didn't have anywhere else to go on Christmas," I can see the inlaws saying "this isn't a soup kitchen" in response. I mean, I actually can't because who says that, but I guess it tracks. It doesn't mean OP had to have told the inlaws that they were helping the neighbors otherwise.

Well later OP says the in-laws said if they wanted to eat with strangers they would go to a restaurant. Supposedly, they said both things or maybe the soup kitchen was just an embellishment. I would think it odd that the in-laws would presume someone who doesn't have family nearby is poor enough to need a soup kitchen.

I think the inlaws were referencing the fact that soup kitchens take people with no where else to go, not the fact that soup kitchens serve primarily low-income people.

The neighbor is not homeless, he has a home with kids to go to. Money is a little tight, that's all we know about him. We don't even know that he has no other family or options, he simply missed a big Christmas. Lots of people say that because they are grown, grandparents may be dead, cousins scattered, etc. But they don't end up at soup kitchens

Sounded to me like the neighbor is divorced, perhaps paying alimony and the budget is tight. And perhaps this is his turn to have the kids for Christmas. He misses big holiday celebrations like when he was married (like his wife used to take care of such things). He may have basic cooking skills, but doesn't have the skills to put together a big holiday meal. OP heard about it and invited him and his kids over for Christmas dinner. And then her in-laws decided to be terrible people and act like toddlers.

OP's husband needs to tell his parents that the guests are coming for dinner. If they can't behave themselves, then they should consider coming to visit some other time. If they can be polite to the guests, then they are welcome to enjoy the holidays together.

I mean, how hard can it be when there are 13 people, to just socialize with your family and not with the neighbor and his children. You can say "Hi! Merry Christmas!" when they arrive and then just socialize with your family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This will be our first Christmas in our new house. We invited my parents and my in laws to come for dinner. They live several hours away, so they will be staying with us for a few days. I invited a neighbor to come to Christmas dinner and bring his children. This man is a single father and doesn't really have a lot of money. We often take him groceries or just ask "hey do you need anything from costco?" when we are on the way there and we refuse to accept any reimbursement.

I told my in laws today that it will be 13 people for Christmas dinner. They wanted to know where the extra people were coming from. I told them that I invited our neighbor and they pitched a fit. They totally flipped out about inviting him and said that this isn't a soup kitchen. Honestly, I'd rather have me neighbor and his well behaved kids over than them at this point. How can I best resolve this without drama?[ quote]

Apparently, they do not understand that it is your house and you decide whom to invite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s perspective from the other side:

I’ve had my family disinvited to Thanksgiving at a friend’s house and a 1st birthday party. In both situations we had known each other for 20 years but weren’t best friends or anything. The reason the friends gave was that they were hosting more ILs than expected or that extra family was coming into town. I told them I understood, of course, and made all the right polite remarks, but I’m not friends with those people anymore because it hurt to get told we were welcome until we weren’t. It’s always awkward to be the little family of outsiders that’s invited to another family’s event, but we’re used to that. We’re not used to the discomfort and shame of being told we’re uninvited! Relationships are built on trust and it’s hard to trust people who rescind invitations for major holidays.

If you listen to all of these PPs saying “family first”, that’s fine, OP, just be sure that you really care more about keeping your ILs happy for one day than for the company of your neighbors.

But did you first tell your friends that you weren't comfortable with the extra family being invited? Because that's what happened here.

Reading comprehension. I *was* the “extra” family. Not the ILs.

Right, but OP's in-laws aren't being booted because there isn't enough room for them after OP decided to invite the neighbors. OP's inlaws are demanding that they disinvite the neighbors because they don't want to deal with non-family at Christmas, and the inlaws may be disinvited as a result. It sounds like your situation was the former, not the latter (which sucks, and I'm sorry).

My point as the disinvited person was probably not articulated well- in both situations the hosts had more than enough space for my family and then some; we’d been hosted by them and reciprocated plenty of times so they knew our style as guests and we knew the size of their events and homes. We were clearly taken off the list because of some sort of family drama and it was easier to just not include “outsiders”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s there to resolve? They can either come or not.

Exactly. I wouldn’t disinvite over this, but would immediately step in if they make inappropriate comments (personally I think this is unlikely).

+1. They need to get over themselves.

And, well done, OP, for demonstrating the WWJD lifestyle.

Yes, this is just the spirit to honor thy mother and father according to the Commandments like all good Christians do. Sounds like cafeteria Christianity.

Inviting people to Christmas isn’t dishonoring your mother and father so I don’t even know what point you are trying to make here.

It's pretty obvious. The in-laws have said this plan makes them uncomfortable. And rather than work with them to make them comfortable and keep everyone happy the only acceptable solution is to take a hard stance, tell the in-laws to just stay home, and pat yourself on the back for being such a loving Christian who brags about their charity to others. Who cares about the people who raised the husband after all?

The in-laws can act like grownups for one meal. Or they can make other plans. Their choice.

Yes, make the houseguests uncomfortable. That's the holiday spirit.

The houseguests are making themselves uncomfortable.

A good host makes all their guests comfortable.

Within reason. Better yet, a good host gives all their guests the opportunity to be comfortable. But a good host will not sacrifice the comfort of one guest for the comfort of another. OP's neighbors aren't asking for the inlaws to be disinvited -- the inlaws are declaring that they will not allow themselves to be comfortable if the neighbors are there.

Is the answer to disinvite the in-laws? I thought invites could not be rescinded?

Of course invitations can be rescinded - I'm not the PP that said they couldn't. You shouldn't rescind invitations except in extreme circumstances, but declaring that another guest is unwelcome certainly qualifies. The answer is to inform the in laws that the neighbors are OPs guests, and if they can't treat the neighbors with kindness, or if they truly feel that they cannot enjoy themselves if the neighbors are there, then the in laws should stay home.

The bait and switch is a raw deal for in-laws who made travel plans under the guise of a small and intimate family Christmas.

OP never said this.

It's in the OP. In-laws wanted to know who the extra people were. They were not expecting others at this small gathering.

OP never invited the in laws under any guise of a small and intimate family Christmas. That’s just flat out false. She told them she would like to host Christmas and that it will be 13 people. She is telling this all to them nearly a month in advance. You are painting a completely false picture here to suggest somehow OP is in the wrong planning the guest list for her own dinner! It’s absurd.

Here is what OP actually said, you don't get to make up your own facts:

"I told my in laws today that it will be 13 people for Christmas dinner. They wanted to know where the extra people were coming from"

Where did the in-laws get the idea "extra" people were coming? Clearly the number wasn't 13 before. OP invited the family then added the neighbors after.

Agreed that the in-laws assumed they would know everyone invited because of course it would just be close family. Presumably they could add up the family members.