Child-free friend excluded from new WhatsApp group 'for her own good'

[Eastie77]

I am in a Whatsapp group with a group of friends, one of whom has just given birth. There is one friend in the group, 'Jill', who does not have children. Everyone else has at least one.

Today another one of my friends created a new Whatsapp group and has invited everyone except for Jill. She has posted an intro message stating that she thinks it's a good idea to have this seperate group for any child related discusions because she is conscious that at times the other one becomes overloaded with baby/child conversations which must be annoying for Jill. The recent chat about the new baby was apparently prime example as everyone (understandbly) talked about it 'for several days'. She added that with school starting up again soon she remembered last year everyone posted pictures of their kids first day etc and so please can we avoid doing that in the main chat and keep it to the child chat group.

I do not know if Jill is childfree by choice or not. I am almost certain that she would be hurt if she discovered we were sharing all our children's pictures, updates etc in another group and completely excluding her so I exited the group. Before do so I asked my friend if
Jill had said anything to her about feeling upset/sidelined by the child related chat and she said no but I should put myself in Jill's shoes and imagine how she feels when there is an endless conversation about the merits of Calpol or formula.

I'm fine not to put up pictures of my DC's first day at school but I'm not planning to avoid mentioning them at all in the main chat. I'm not rejoining the new group. Is this really unreasonable?

[NewAccount270219]

Because of course Jill is utterly incapable of assessing for herself how much babytalk she wants to engage in, or of turning off her own notifications.

Presumably that's exactly the point of the person who started the new group - that at the moment Jill has to either wade through all the kid chat or totally stop engaging with her friends. WhatsApp isn't yet clever enough that you can turn off notifications only on certain subjects.

[messolini9]

so I exited the group
Bravo, @Eastie77!

Excuse me - am lurking around a few threads from women unable to say NO to CF's atm, so may be a little excitable, seeing someone able to do the right thing in the face of social pressure.

I'm fine not to put up pictures of my DC's first day at school but I'm not planning to avoid mentioning them at all in the main chat. I'm not rejoining the new group. Is this really unreasonable?

YANBU.

There is absolutely no reason to comply with bitchy-friend's edicts.
If bitchy-friend gets "upset" (i.e. pissed off & manipulative) about it, she's only proved her Mean Girls credentials.

Jill has a great friend in you Eastie :)

[sonjadog]

As a childless person, I think it wouldn't be that there existed such a group that would upset me, but that it had come into existence because someone decided I find child-chat annoying without actually asking me. I do wonder what the motivation of the group-maker is? Does she like being the one in charge? Is she trying to exclude Jill?

[messolini9]

I think the key is how Jill feels about child related updates

With courtesy - I couldn't disagre more!
What Jill feels about child related updates is Jill's business.
What Jill chooses to do about child-related updates is Jill's business.
It is NOBODY's business to manufacture an exclusion zone around Jill because Jill has not achieved parturition.
The "need" for a new Whatsapp Group is bullshit. The 'friend' who suggested it has ulterior motives, & they're not pretty.

[MrFlibblesEyes]

I think previous posters are probably right and Jill has confided in your other friend about having fertility issues and she is trying to keep the baby chat to a minimum on the other group to spare her feelings. I had a tough time conceiving and it would have been very hard to be involved in a group that was had become quite child oriented (especially with a friend who has just given birth) when I couldn't contribute and didn't know if I would ever get the chance. I had a friend announce a pregnancy in our group a few months after I had miscarried and although deep down I was happy for her it was a constant reminder that my baby would have been due 2 months before hers. The most I could do was choke out a congratulations and then mute the group. I personally would have been happy for them to have a separate group for child talk and would in no way be offended.

[KurriKurri]

I think two groups one for kids chat and one for general convo is fine - but I would have Jill in both then she can join the conversation or not as she chooses. She may like hearing about children or she may welcome the separate groups.

But doing it behind her back and excluding her is not nice - and honestly if the usually group suddenly starts having no mention of children, unless Jill is spectacularly dim she's going to notice very quickly that something has changed.

[Leighhalfpennysthigh]

It is, and yet, it isn't. It's difficult because I know when I was desperately ttc I would have struggled with baby chat and photos. Now I've come to terms with how life turned out and am happy to see it all and love the back to school,photos that I get sent. My friends children and the children in my family are all very dear to me and I like being part of their lives - so being cut out of that because of my failure to reproduce is hurtful and patronising.

So what she has done could be right, but it's the fact that Jill was left out of the conversation that's the real issue. As someone else said it's like she's being treated like a child for not having one and that is really wrong.

[MsTSwift]

Why the drama and emotion? I think it’s sensible. I have different groups for friends skiing book club class mums etc . Skiiers dont want to know what book I’m enjoying book club don’t want the latest on our flight booking

[UrsulaPandress]

I’m in a WhatsApp group where a childless friend has just left. This was after much congratulating of a new grandchild for another member and I did wonder if that was why. Or if our inane witterings were boring her.

[messolini9]

[OP] she said no but I should put myself in Jill's shoes and imagine how she feels when there is an endless conversation about the merits of Calpol or formula.

[PP] I just reread it and this put me a lot more on the side of your friend. This isn't sharing the odd picture, it's tedious drivel (I don't want to be in that chat and I have a baby!). Of course Jill doesn't want to be in a group where you talk about Calpol.

Again, that is JILL's decision. If she doesn't want to chat endlessly about Calpol, she can leave the group or switch off notifications. Why would one adult feel they're entitled to make that decison on another adult - Jill's - behalf? Why the secrecy?

The justification by 'friend' is very damning.
What happened to her thinking that she can "put herself in Jill's shoes" to covertly exclude her from a group - but is unable to "put herself in Jill's shoes" about how Jill might feel should she learn about being excluded?

It's so smug, patronising & divisive.

[NewAccount270219]

If she doesn't want to chat endlessly about Calpol, she can leave the group or switch off notifications.

No, she can't, not without completely losing all contact with her friends. I agree that asking her would have been the best option - and that second best would have been just adding her to the new group called 'child chat' or whatever so she can mute that if she wants to - but as it stands Jill has no option to have the rest of the group chat without the drivel about formula, and I think the friend meant well in trying to give her that option.

[messolini9]

Oops wrong thread. Don't think Nato need to be involved.

Oh, I'm not so sure about that, @paddlingwhenIshouldbeworking ...

OP's new-group-setting-up 'friend' could probably use a lesson from NATO about tact & diplomacy :)

[pinkyredrose]

Why don't you ask Jill if she minds the kid chat?

[London91]

I am like your friend Jill. I'm child-free but not by choice. As much as some of the baby pics do hurt, I would be more hurt about being excluded. If I can't face the group chat for a day then I have the choice to ignore. My friends would probably just assume I'm too busy that day.

[PurpleDaisies]

What happens when all the chat migrates to the baby group, because who can be arsed to think which chat goes where and it’a easier just to bung everything in the child friendly chat, and Jill is effectively excluded?

This is exactly what happened to me. It’s horrible to start a secret group where the only way you can get in is to have a functioning reproductive system. It’s bad enough not being able to conceive but even worse when your friends basically decide you have nothing in common any more you because if it.

[notyetsleepingthrough]

Are you sure the friend is not reacting to a comment/ private conversation she has had with Jill? I cannot imagine an adult otherwise just excluding another adult without consulting them openly

[Engoltheharpy]

It's the secrecy and how the group has evolved that will cause the problems.
If it had started with one mum posting something to a couple of others and eventually everyone who had children was added and it talked about openly then Jill probably wouldn't bat an eyelid. But to have an existing chat group and create another one leaving one person out is not nice.

A chat group titled "children's discussions" or similar could've been set up and everyone invited to join, with the explanation that chatting about children can sometimes take over from chatting with each other. Jill and every other parent could then decide if they want to be involved in the second group or not.

[PurpleDaisies]

I cannot imagine an adult otherwise just excluding another adult without consulting them openly

As I said in my post, this is exactly what happened to me.

[messolini9]

(Messolini) Because of course Jill is utterly incapable of assessing for herself how much babytalk she wants to engage in, or of turning off her own notifications.

(New Account) Presumably that's exactly the point of the person who started the new group - that at the moment Jill has to either wade through all the kid chat or totally stop engaging with her friends. WhatsApp isn't yet clever enough that you can turn off notifications only on certain subjects

My post about Jill's ability to manage her own social media account were sarcastic. Sorry if that was unclear @NewAccount270219.

It would be like me (if you & I were real-life chums) switching off certain MN threads on your behalf, so that "you didn't have to wade through them". As if you weren't an adult who could make her own choices. It would be weird, controlling & patronising of me. And I would expect you to be at least bewildered, at most upset, when you discovered my secret interference.

[messolini9]

I do wonder what the motivation of the group-maker is? Does she like being the one in charge? Is she trying to exclude Jill?

me too, @sonjadog.

& I can't help but suspect - 1) Questionable 2) Yes 3) Probably.

[redcarbluecar]

If the new group is purely about child related issues (Calpol, teething etc) and not just a narrowing of the friendship group I think it might be ok, as long as Jill knows about it and people aren’t making arrangements there that exclude her unnecessarily. However it’s a bit presumptuous to think that your ‘child free’ friend wouldn’t want to see photos of her mates’ kids and hear about special milestones. It is possible not to have children but still to be interested in them.

[NewAccount270219]

Of course I got your sarcasm (who's patronising now?!) but my point is that while it's in one group (the OP's preferred option - she didn't suggest adding Jill to the other group) Jill can't filter out the child stuff herself - she's going to have to look through it to see if there is anything she does want to see - so your MN analogy doesn't work. It's more like the fact that MN created the Brexit area of the site because until then it was unavoidable on all threads.

I agree that Jill should have been added to the group so she could mute it or not as she chose, but I don't think the existence of the group is nefarious, and nor do I think the motives of the friend were necessarily bad.

[rubyroot]

Shouldn't Jill be asked?

[messolini9]

But doing it behind her back and excluding her is not nice - and honestly if the usually group suddenly starts having no mention of children, unless Jill is spectacularly dim she's going to notice very quickly that something has changed.

As @KurriKurri succinctly puts it - it's behind Jill's back.
No amount of bullshit "for her own good" speeches can justify the secrecy.

It's just not nice to have this secrecy, & it's really not nice to ask everybody else to collude in it.
Except of course Jill.