We agreed I would host Easter…now MIL is balking

[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 the story I would say the poster was being deliberately obtuse by using the rationale of I don’t see what the problem is with everyone having to travel 2 hours to come my house for every damn holiday. Keeping up the tradition for the kids is also ridiculous because the family wanting to take a turn at hosting is the only one with kids! Sorry, but there is a right here, and it’s not MIL getting to host all holidays for eternity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. There was a conversation. MIL agreed. Now she's changing her mind. There's no new information here, and no need to keep negotiating this.

[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.

1) No one is “obligated” to accept OP/DH’s invitation. There is no “show up or else no more access to the grandkids” or “show up or else we won’t come for Christmas.”

2) OP and DH are very deliberately not stepping on Thanksgiving or Christmas toes. MIL still gets to be Queen for a Day for those important holidays (when it is OP/DH’s turn to be with them in the rotation they’ve worked out with OP’s family). If you (or MIL) is the kind of self-proclaimed “matriarch” who “owns” all major holidays and you can’t even let people host for a change on Easter, shame on you. Especially shame on you if you expect people with kids to schlep to you all the time, when you are able-bodied and retired.

[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.

1) No one is “obligated” to accept OP/DH’s invitation. There is no “show up or else no more access to the grandkids” or “show up or else we won’t come for Christmas.”

2) OP and DH are very deliberately not stepping on Thanksgiving or Christmas toes. MIL still gets to be Queen for a Day for those important holidays (when it is OP/DH’s turn to be with them in the rotation they’ve worked out with OP’s family). If you (or MIL) is the kind of self-proclaimed “matriarch” who “owns” all major holidays and you can’t even let people host for a change on Easter, shame on you. Especially shame on you if you expect people with kids to schlep to you all the time, when you are able-bodied and retired.

+1 If the MIL had posted that, she’d be skewered on here, and rightfully so, for failing to mention she always hosts the other two major family holidays and that it’s very easy for her and her DH to travel and less so for the family of 4 with 2 little kids.

[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 the story “went like that” I would ask:
A) Do you host the majority of the holidays in your family?
B) What would be so bad about doing something you agreed to do?
C) Do you realize that if you take a hard line on this one Easter, you may lose your iron-clad grip on Thanksgiving and Christmas? Hmm? Would that be worth it to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes! Stay out of it and good for your husband for staying firm.

+1!!

Another +1. And so nice to hear DH is handling.

[Anonymous]

Yes you stay out of it.

You are having a party on x date and if MIL and SIL choose not to come, that's fine. You canceling your party and going to visit them is a non starter.

See ya at Thanksgiving Grandma!

[Anonymous]

Good for your husband. You enjoy not traveling and hosting whomever shows up. And then you can feel free to agree to travel to them for Thanksgiving, but maybe “balk” a month out and let her see how that feels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good for your husband. You enjoy not traveling and hosting whomever shows up. And then you can feel free to agree to travel to them for Thanksgiving, but maybe “balk” a month out and let her see how that feels.

OMG I know this isn’t a mature strategy, but it sure is a funny one.

[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.

NP here. Disagree. The one who has hosted for years has to share the hosting if someone else wants to give it a try. So unless parents are so infirm that they can't travel to their hosting kid, they don't get to hoard all the holidays.

I say this as someone who detests hosting and will gladly go to someone else's house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good for your husband. You enjoy not traveling and hosting whomever shows up. And then you can feel free to agree to travel to them for Thanksgiving, but maybe “balk” a month out and let her see how that feels.

Yeah, that rarely works, because the people who are immature enough to bait and switch are by definition too self-absorbed to learn their lesson when someone does it to them. They'll just have "proof" that they were the victim all along. I've seen it happen too many times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for your husband. You enjoy not traveling and hosting whomever shows up. And then you can feel free to agree to travel to them for Thanksgiving, but maybe “balk” a month out and let her see how that feels.

Yeah, that rarely works, because the people who are immature enough to bait and switch are by definition too self-absorbed to learn their lesson when someone does it to them. They'll just have "proof" that they were the victim all along. I've seen it happen too many times.

And? What would the loss be? Not having to schlep to an ill-behaved grandma’s house, or not having to have an ill-behaved grandma as a houseguest. I don’t see that as a loss. She made her own bed and now she can lie in it, alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for your husband. You enjoy not traveling and hosting whomever shows up. And then you can feel free to agree to travel to them for Thanksgiving, but maybe “balk” a month out and let her see how that feels.

Yeah, that rarely works, because the people who are immature enough to bait and switch are by definition too self-absorbed to learn their lesson when someone does it to them. They'll just have "proof" that they were the victim all along. I've seen it happen too many times.

And there it is, the extremely sweeping harsh judgment and painting MIL as a terrible person. This is one situation in which the MIL is not acting exactly as she "should." No need to make it more than that.

[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.

What? If this was the story I would definitely say it is time for person who usually hosts to loosen the reigns. Since they agreed to this, they need to step up and follow through on their word. The family that asked to host this year is in the right.

Your take in your scenario is bizarre.

[Anonymous]

All the trying to paint the MIL as reasonable for wanting to control all holidays is wrong. There is no reasonable version of her story.

Of course the MIL can do what she wants, but kudos to her son for drawing a firm boundary for his family. May it be the start of a great tradition.