Not inviting kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Declining the invitation is fine. Wheedling about the baby is not.

No rational mother would want to take a 3mo to a group event anyway, especially at the tail end of cold/flu/COVID season.

Decline, that is absolutely fine. But making this such a production and whining and wheedling and running to the Internet is beyond stupid.

And yes, I breastfed two babies, and had bottle refusal with the first. Even with bottle refusal, I would have stopped by my brother’s local wedding reception for an hour or two while DH tried a bottle at home. It would have been a worthwhile opportunity for bottle practice, and if it didn’t work, I’d just feed when I got home.

I bet if I showed up for an hour or two it would unfortunately cause more drama. She likely wouldn't be able to attend the dinner and then there would be whining about how rude she was leaving early.

Just skip both events.

OK? If someone whined at me in a situation like that, I would say, “Yes, sorry, must get back to the baby. Lovely to see you all, and congratulations, Jim and Beth!” Then leave. If people whine or pout, so what? So freaking what? Then what, you’ll explode or drop dead if someone pouts at you? Or the world will keep turning and you’ll just carry on with your day. It’s one of those two things, PP.

Main character syndrome. Is OP actually fantasizing that if she went for an hour people would be begging her to stay? Which people? Neither the B&G or groom’s parents care. Who are the other guests? Presumably the couple’s friends and perhaps bride parents? Why would they be there to see OP? It’s only 15 people. OP isn’t that special.

See, that's why she shouldn't leave though. Leaving before the event is over DOES make it all about her and takes the attention away from the brother which would be very hurtful. Like another hour away from the baby is more important than celebrating her brother's special day? Come on. OP needs to suck it up and stick it out or decline.

Honestly, are you OK? If a mother of a 3mo baby needs to leave to go take care of her baby and breastfeed her baby, that is 100% understandable and acceptable. If someone thinks that it is unreasonable or disruptive, that’s their problem.

Besides, this event is extremely low-key, a courthouse wedding followed by a small dinner. That is an intimate setting with family who understand there is a baby at home.

Anyone “hurt” by that should have been flexible with inviting OP’s whole family so they could be with her and she could breastfeed at the restaurant.

Op asked if there was flexibility and didn't get an answer. I would expect an understanding family would have at minimum responded "no and we understand if you can't make the whole event."

The fact they didn't makes me wonder what kind of response op would get if she ducks out early.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Also a good daily reminder to brides and grooms that they can invite who they want but they can't force people to attend.

Anonymous wrote:And absolutely NO ONE said otherwise.

+1The anti-child-free-wedding side needs to make shit like this up, to make the other side appear as loony as they are.

Nobody is forcing you to attend their wedding. It you are projecting your hysteria on the bride and groom, they are probably hoping you do decline.

+1. OP will probably be sulky and texting her husband the whole time because the baby will surely die in his care for 2 hours.

And you know this because??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is your daily reminder that while your kids may be the center of YOUR world, they are not in fact the center of THE world.

Also a good daily reminder to brides and grooms that they can invite who they want but they can't force people to attend.

And absolutely NO ONE said otherwise.

Go back and read all the posts paying special attention to the ones calling parents "co dependent" or mocking them as bestest firstest ever wanting a participation trophy.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Also a good daily reminder to brides and grooms that they can invite who they want but they can't force people to attend.

Anonymous wrote:And absolutely NO ONE said otherwise.

+1The anti-child-free-wedding side needs to make shit like this up, to make the other side appear as loony as they are.

Nobody is forcing you to attend their wedding. It you are projecting your hysteria on the bride and groom, they are probably hoping you do decline.

+1. OP will probably be sulky and texting her husband the whole time because the baby will surely die in his care for 2 hours.

And you know this because??

I’m as sure of this happening as those who are insisting OP will definitely cause a scene leaving early. They know this because??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is your daily reminder that while your kids may be the center of YOUR world, they are not in fact the center of THE world.

Also a good daily reminder to brides and grooms that they can invite who they want but they can't force people to attend.

And absolutely NO ONE said otherwise.

Go back and read all the posts paying special attention to the ones calling parents "co dependent" or mocking them as bestest firstest ever wanting a participation trophy.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding.

She can consider her baby’s needs by simply replying no. But that’s not what happened here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is your daily reminder that while your kids may be the center of YOUR world, they are not in fact the center of THE world.

Also a good daily reminder to brides and grooms that they can invite who they want but they can't force people to attend.

And absolutely NO ONE said otherwise.

Go back and read all the posts paying special attention to the ones calling parents "co dependent" or mocking them as bestest firstest ever wanting a participation trophy.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding.

She can consider her baby’s needs by simply replying no. But that’s not what happened here.

+1

It's always the parents making this a thing. They simply can't decline and leave it at that.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding

Wrong. OP is being called out for this:

OP: "Obviously it's 100% your right to have a child-free wedding but it just seems very targeted at us"

It's targeted at OP if the invite read "OP's children are not invited". OP making this more than it is - simply a childfree wedding and dinner - is why OP is getting criticism.

Unless they specifically planned to have the wedding after OP had a baby - to intentionally exclude her - this "targeted" thinking is baseless, a manifestation of her frustration over a child free wedding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is your daily reminder that while your kids may be the center of YOUR world, they are not in fact the center of THE world.

Also a good daily reminder to brides and grooms that they can invite who they want but they can't force people to attend.

And absolutely NO ONE said otherwise.

Go back and read all the posts paying special attention to the ones calling parents "co dependent" or mocking them as bestest firstest ever wanting a participation trophy.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding.

She can consider her baby’s needs by simply replying no. But that’s not what happened here.

+1

It's always the parents making this a thing. They simply can't decline and leave it at that.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding

Wrong. OP is being called out for this:

OP: "Obviously it's 100% your right to have a child-free wedding but it just seems very targeted at us"

It's targeted at OP if the invite read "OP's children are not invited". OP making this more than it is - simply a childfree wedding and dinner - is why OP is getting criticism.

Unless they specifically planned to have the wedding after OP had a baby - to intentionally exclude her - this "targeted" thinking is baseless, a manifestation of her frustration over a child free wedding.

Op is the only guest with kids so by your logic then yes, it is directed at her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is your daily reminder that while your kids may be the center of YOUR world, they are not in fact the center of THE world.

Also a good daily reminder to brides and grooms that they can invite who they want but they can't force people to attend.

And absolutely NO ONE said otherwise.

Go back and read all the posts paying special attention to the ones calling parents "co dependent" or mocking them as bestest firstest ever wanting a participation trophy.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding.

She can consider her baby’s needs by simply replying no. But that’s not what happened here.

+1

It's always the parents making this a thing. They simply can't decline and leave it at that.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding

Wrong. OP is being called out for this:

OP: "Obviously it's 100% your right to have a child-free wedding but it just seems very targeted at us"

It's targeted at OP if the invite read "OP's children are not invited". OP making this more than it is - simply a childfree wedding and dinner - is why OP is getting criticism.

Unless they specifically planned to have the wedding after OP had a baby - to intentionally exclude her - this "targeted" thinking is baseless, a manifestation of her frustration over a child free wedding.

Op is the only guest with kids so by your logic then yes, it is directed at her.

No, it's not targeted at her. The post you just read explained why:

"Unless they specifically planned to have the wedding after OP had a baby..."
"It's targeted at OP if the invite read 'OP's children are not invited'".

[Anonymous]

Lol, all the childless posters flood in her during dinnertime to complain about kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is your daily reminder that while your kids may be the center of YOUR world, they are not in fact the center of THE world.

Also a good daily reminder to brides and grooms that they can invite who they want but they can't force people to attend.

And absolutely NO ONE said otherwise.

Go back and read all the posts paying special attention to the ones calling parents "co dependent" or mocking them as bestest firstest ever wanting a participation trophy.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding.

She can consider her baby’s needs by simply replying no. But that’s not what happened here.

+1

It's always the parents making this a thing. They simply can't decline and leave it at that.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding

Wrong. OP is being called out for this:

OP: "Obviously it's 100% your right to have a child-free wedding but it just seems very targeted at us"

It's targeted at OP if the invite read "OP's children are not invited". OP making this more than it is - simply a childfree wedding and dinner - is why OP is getting criticism.

Unless they specifically planned to have the wedding after OP had a baby - to intentionally exclude her - this "targeted" thinking is baseless, a manifestation of her frustration over a child free wedding.

Op is the only guest with kids so by your logic then yes, it is directed at her.

No, it's not targeted at her. The post you just read explained why:

"Unless they specifically planned to have the wedding after OP had a baby..."
"It's targeted at OP if the invite read 'OP's children are not invited'".

Yes, if only one guest has kids it is targeted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol, all the childless posters flood in her during dinnertime to complain about kids.

Nobody is complaining about kids.

We are complaining about entitled parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Declining the invitation is fine. Wheedling about the baby is not.

No rational mother would want to take a 3mo to a group event anyway, especially at the tail end of cold/flu/COVID season.

Decline, that is absolutely fine. But making this such a production and whining and wheedling and running to the Internet is beyond stupid.

And yes, I breastfed two babies, and had bottle refusal with the first. Even with bottle refusal, I would have stopped by my brother’s local wedding reception for an hour or two while DH tried a bottle at home. It would have been a worthwhile opportunity for bottle practice, and if it didn’t work, I’d just feed when I got home.

I bet if I showed up for an hour or two it would unfortunately cause more drama. She likely wouldn't be able to attend the dinner and then there would be whining about how rude she was leaving early.

Just skip both events.

OK? If someone whined at me in a situation like that, I would say, “Yes, sorry, must get back to the baby. Lovely to see you all, and congratulations, Jim and Beth!” Then leave. If people whine or pout, so what? So freaking what? Then what, you’ll explode or drop dead if someone pouts at you? Or the world will keep turning and you’ll just carry on with your day. It’s one of those two things, PP.

Main character syndrome. Is OP actually fantasizing that if she went for an hour people would be begging her to stay? Which people? Neither the B&G or groom’s parents care. Who are the other guests? Presumably the couple’s friends and perhaps bride parents? Why would they be there to see OP? It’s only 15 people. OP isn’t that special.

See, that's why she shouldn't leave though. Leaving before the event is over DOES make it all about her and takes the attention away from the brother which would be very hurtful. Like another hour away from the baby is more important than celebrating her brother's special day? Come on. OP needs to suck it up and stick it out or decline.

Honestly, are you OK? If a mother of a 3mo baby needs to leave to go take care of her baby and breastfeed her baby, that is 100% understandable and acceptable. If someone thinks that it is unreasonable or disruptive, that’s their problem.

Besides, this event is extremely low-key, a courthouse wedding followed by a small dinner. That is an intimate setting with family who understand there is a baby at home.

Anyone “hurt” by that should have been flexible with inviting OP’s whole family so they could be with her and she could breastfeed at the restaurant.

Op asked if there was flexibility and didn't get an answer. I would expect an understanding family would have at minimum responded "no and we understand if you can't make the whole event."

The fact they didn't makes me wonder what kind of response op would get if she ducks out early.

You mean OP didn’t get an answer they liked bc this is what she said: They said "oh actually kids aren't invited, please find an arrangement for them".

Why are you saying there was no response? You completely misread the OP or are just making it up as you go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is your daily reminder that while your kids may be the center of YOUR world, they are not in fact the center of THE world.

Also a good daily reminder to brides and grooms that they can invite who they want but they can't force people to attend.

And absolutely NO ONE said otherwise.

Go back and read all the posts paying special attention to the ones calling parents "co dependent" or mocking them as bestest firstest ever wanting a participation trophy.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding.

She can consider her baby’s needs by simply replying no. But that’s not what happened here.

+1

It's always the parents making this a thing. They simply can't decline and leave it at that.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding

Wrong. OP is being called out for this:

OP: "Obviously it's 100% your right to have a child-free wedding but it just seems very targeted at us"

It's targeted at OP if the invite read "OP's children are not invited". OP making this more than it is - simply a childfree wedding and dinner - is why OP is getting criticism.

Unless they specifically planned to have the wedding after OP had a baby - to intentionally exclude her - this "targeted" thinking is baseless, a manifestation of her frustration over a child free wedding.

Op is the only guest with kids so by your logic then yes, it is directed at her.

No, it's not targeted at her. The post you just read explained why:

"Unless they specifically planned to have the wedding after OP had a baby..."
"It's targeted at OP if the invite read 'OP's children are not invited'".

Yes, if only one guest has kids it is targeted.

It would be targeted if other kids were invited and they said “oh no, not yours.” People get so angry about that here. They will see nieces and nephews and wonder why they couldn’t bring their kids that the bride and groom have never met.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is your daily reminder that while your kids may be the center of YOUR world, they are not in fact the center of THE world.

Also a good daily reminder to brides and grooms that they can invite who they want but they can't force people to attend.

And absolutely NO ONE said otherwise.

Go back and read all the posts paying special attention to the ones calling parents "co dependent" or mocking them as bestest firstest ever wanting a participation trophy.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding.

She can consider her baby’s needs by simply replying no. But that’s not what happened here.

+1

It's always the parents making this a thing. They simply can't decline and leave it at that.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding

Wrong. OP is being called out for this:

OP: "Obviously it's 100% your right to have a child-free wedding but it just seems very targeted at us"

It's targeted at OP if the invite read "OP's children are not invited". OP making this more than it is - simply a childfree wedding and dinner - is why OP is getting criticism.

Unless they specifically planned to have the wedding after OP had a baby - to intentionally exclude her - this "targeted" thinking is baseless, a manifestation of her frustration over a child free wedding.

Op is the only guest with kids so by your logic then yes, it is directed at her.

No, it's not targeted at her. The post you just read explained why:

"Unless they specifically planned to have the wedding after OP had a baby..."
"It's targeted at OP if the invite read 'OP's children are not invited'".

If a store has a sign that says "no women allowed" it's targeted to woman. It doesn't have to list every woman by name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is your daily reminder that while your kids may be the center of YOUR world, they are not in fact the center of THE world.

Also a good daily reminder to brides and grooms that they can invite who they want but they can't force people to attend.

And absolutely NO ONE said otherwise.

Go back and read all the posts paying special attention to the ones calling parents "co dependent" or mocking them as bestest firstest ever wanting a participation trophy.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding.

She can consider her baby’s needs by simply replying no. But that’s not what happened here.

+1

It's always the parents making this a thing. They simply can't decline and leave it at that.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding

Wrong. OP is being called out for this:

OP: "Obviously it's 100% your right to have a child-free wedding but it just seems very targeted at us"

It's targeted at OP if the invite read "OP's children are not invited". OP making this more than it is - simply a childfree wedding and dinner - is why OP is getting criticism.

Unless they specifically planned to have the wedding after OP had a baby - to intentionally exclude her - this "targeted" thinking is baseless, a manifestation of her frustration over a child free wedding.

Op is the only guest with kids so by your logic then yes, it is directed at her.

No, it's not targeted at her. The post you just read explained why:

"Unless they specifically planned to have the wedding after OP had a baby..."
"It's targeted at OP if the invite read 'OP's children are not invited'".

If a store has a sign that says "no women allowed" it's targeted to woman. It doesn't have to list every woman by name.

It’s a party. For all we know it’s at a brewery that doesn’t allow kids.