Am I being unreasonable about being offended when people think men should sit at the head of the table?

My mum was like that (1970s)
We've a round table mind you there's only two of us.
I do the cooking every thing gets served eeky peekys if we're having the same.

OP, if this has caused you so much of an issue, and that you can't accept your MIL, your marriage won't be lasting long. Get over yourself, respect different eras and traditions and that you have family around you.

It used to piss me of when I used to go exs mother's house he would just sit there doing sweet FA. Whilst his mum was in the hot kitchen cooking for several people then he would be asked to carve the meat and sit head of the table. Used to make me think wtf

What if a woman sits in it?

This is funny.

Its the end of the table, we know this!!

If it was a house where someone sat at the head of the table and people took turns, sure that would be fine.

But that isn't the situation the op as described. Dragging the man's table setting to a special "more important" position that isn't regularly used is weird as anything and definitely something dc would notice.

Hilariously old fashioned.

I was born in the 70s and grew up in a family of 4 female siblings. My dad was the sole bread winner and no more thought of himself as the head of the household than the cat. We were a family who always had meals at the table, and as there were 6 of us, we had 2 at the ‘head’ or each end. Those people were whoever happened to sit there.

Now with a family of our own, we have slipped into table ‘places’. My husband is the one who cooks every meal and so seats himself last every time. He’s never once sat at the table head.

But no-one needs to sit at the end. Are you saying the man should sit at the end?

A husband definitely needs the biggest portion, I couldn’t agree more. And he must carve the meat during Sunday roast.

It’s not a more important position in their house, because they don’t use the ‘head of the table’, so actually it’s just a seat and an older lady following a tradition whilst helping out as a guest. It wouldn’t have turned her DH into a sexist bastard or damaged their daughters. HTH.

He had likely been working flat out all week providing for his wife, and she likely was an excellent cook who enjoyed it and felt equally proud to provide for her husband through food. Completely up to them, their marriage is their business.

I live alone and the last man in my life walked in and sat I the carver chair at the head of my table . He didn’t last long .

I don't personally get aroused over any man believing he's superior to me. I find a lack of critical thinking skills incredibly unattractive.

Also, surely even if this is your bag, you want a man to actually act in a protective or commanding way? Not just cosplay a dominant man by sitting on a special seat? It has real "five year old" vibes that any man would want to!

But why did she need to put him there. There were seats in the sides of the table that fitted everyone and in fact no seat at the end

Probably following an outdated tradition, it’s not a crime. OP didn’t need to insult her over it.

Sexist wallpaper is a great phrase! Exactly what I came here to say. It's one of those things that looks like nothing but will continue unless we challenge it. And then it perpetuates the patriarchy by subtly implying a man is the superior member of the household.

Someone has to break the cycle. Well done 🙌🏼💯

That's what would piss me off too.

We don't do that here, my house, my fucking rules!

I would probably do the same if Im honest, 3 chairs opposite, when you could have 2 chairs opposite and the ends of the table occupied, gives people more room. Im a bit elbowy myself, I like a bit of space.

What if she said 'lets sit mum at the head of the table' and move the chair round. Would that be ok?

Why sit him there then, if it doesn't symbolise anything? Why do to the effort of moving the chair?

Clearly the tradition of "sitting at the head of the table" is about import!

So the head of the table is where a man sits; ergo wherever a man sits becomes the head of the table? Does that mean then that he couldn't possibly not sit at the head of the table unless 'identifying' as not a man?

Unless you're in McDonald's and you insist on sitting in the throne in the kiddies' area (do they still have those?), is it not just the end of the table? Most family households will only have a table that seats 4 or 6 anyway, so it's not like it's somehow special, is it? If it only seats 4, then every seat is the head/end/side. I'd understand if you were at Buckingham Palace and on a massively long table with 50 seats either side and then Charles at the top on a golden banquette; but a standard household table?

Also, if we're assuming a 6-seater table - two seats along each side and one at each end - doesn't that basically mean that there are two 'heads of the table'? Or do you have to do something to the other end to deliberately make it noticeably inferior as the the 'bottom of the table'? Isn't this just like the old joke about confusing a fool by taking them into a round room and telling them to stand in the corner?!

So how would you have explained it to the daughters, when I assume there is probably less space for the person sitting at right angles to them and an empty space opposite that person?

The MIL doesn’t live there, it’s not her house? It’s OP and her DHs house and in their home, it doesn’t symbolise anything.