Family and ‘we’re only buying for the children now’

[NemophilistRebel]

Am I the only one who thinks you skinflint?

Family member who has 3 children which we have always bought for along with the parents decides as soon as we have first baby that now we have children (1) we can buy for children only at Christmas and birthdays.

So that’s years worth of buying for their 3 and them not having an issue, and now they just buy for one.

Is this typical with CF family members ?

[NemophilistRebel]

Yes no adult is expecting to be spoiled with gifts I am sure. And this isn’t what I was saying.

It’s the rudeness of the way it’s said and the timing too.
We’ve always spent more on people’s children than the adults to be able to afford a token gift for them. It’s only little bit it’s a nice gesture

[NemophilistRebel]

@Pottedtree hopefully no one is making Christmas a transaction

[MutedUser]

Sounds sensible to only buy for kids . It’s not their fault they had kids before you . You sound entitled .

[dreichwinter]

If the brother has asked not to be bought a gift it seems pretty unreasonable to buy him
one.
A gift is meant to give pleasure and you know for whatever reason this family have decided the adults don't want to receive gifts so getting one is unlikely to bring pleasure.
There must be other people or charities your husband could channel his gift buying enthusiasm into where it would be appreciated.

[Winterhater]

Now would be a good to stop exchanging gifts altogether.
People can take the huff all they like but stand firm and they’ll get over it

[WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll]

My sisters eldest is 18 this year and she thinks we should still buy for him as it wouldn't be fair to only buy for his siblings

Will she also expect him to wait until his youngest sibling is old enough before he learns to drive or goes out with his mates to the pub?

Children should, where possible, get the same - but they won't get it all at the same time. He got 100% of his parents' attention for however long it was before his oldest sibling was born - that's something that the others (who will also not have their parents with them for as much of their lives) can never truly have.

[NemophilistRebel]

Entitled to what?
As said countless times it’s not the monetary value that matters

[TellMeWhoTheVilliansAre]

Unfortunately it’s not as easy as just buying for the brother anyway as it would likely cause some argument or low down resentment with SIL

So?

You've said above that you should be allowed spend your money how you like. Does that only go for you, but not SIL? She is as equally entitled as you to spend her money how she likes.

If she gets a snot on and displays "low down resentment" so be it. Sounds like you don't think much of her anyway.

You're talking about how you feel, and how the SIL feels about how the husband's spend their money. How do the husband's feel? I'd hazard a guess they're not as fussed as you two!

[Emeraldshamrock]

Yanbu. I have nieces and nephews from age 3 to 18. Dsis only has one DC the 3 year old I could never stop it now, my eldest is 11.
I owe her plenty of years.
If we eventually stop the others, I'll still get her a gift. Fair is fair.
We only buy DC and do an adult sibling secret Santa.

[HappyHolidays75]

Surely adding an upper age limit on when you stop buying for the kids (e.g. aged 16) evens it all out.

You will have less years left of buying, they will have more years (and maybe nieces and nephews not yet born).

[BritWifeinUSA]

I never understand these “it’s not fair that they only have one nephew to buy for not we have to buy for 3/4/26 nephews”. First of all, they gave their own 3 children to buy for as well as yours. You’re each buying for 4 children. Secondly, they have three children to support all year, you only have to buy them one gift each. If you think they have it easier, wait until you have your third...

Thirdly, just reduce the cost of each gift if you feel it’s about who spends what. I was one of 5 and my DH was one of 9 - we were both accustomed to receiving smaller, lower value gifts from relatives. We now have 22 nieces and nephews and no children of our own. So we buy 22 gifts and get nothing back. By your logic that would be unfair. By our logic it isn’t, it’s just life.

[Makesmilingyourbesthobby]

I get it, my DSis who is the eldest had her child first for years she was the only one of us with a child all happily bought her DD and her and her partner gifts then me and my other DSis had our first children and we all bought for everyone that Christmas, following Christmas she texted me and other DSis how about we don’t buy each other kids presents anymore for Christmas after around 8 years of buying her child, me and other DSis like the exchange of gifts so we still buy each other’s and don’t want to leave DN out so both give her money as she older two but she went years not buying ours anything only been the last two three years she buys ours £5 gifts and she’s the one who has the most income but none of it surprises me with her she’s the same with everything I now have 3 DC eldest is 11 and Dsis has only ever came to two birthday party’s they have had 19 birthday parties between them only ever come to see them three times in total on they birthday

[TrickyKid]

I don't see the issue. Everyone ends up with less 'stuff'. We've always only bought for the kids in our family. If you feel hard done to just spend less on their dc.

[WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll]

Sounds sensible to only buy for kids . It’s not their fault they had kids before you . You sound entitled .

Of course it isn't their 'fault' (???) that they had kids first (although their respective birth dates/gaps might have had a big bearing on when this was likely to happen), but it is their 'fault' that they only decided to make it kids only after having several years of having kids and still expecting presents themselves as well.

It might sound a strange family-fairness analogy, but if we were instead talking about an inheritance, it would be the equivalent of parents of two adult children dying and leaving 55% of their money to their 55yo DC and 45% of it to their 45yo DC on the grounds that the elder one had been their child for longer. Would you say it's not the older one's fault that they were born 10 years earlier?

[monkeymonkey2010]

they're making it easier for themselves - and for you in the long run.
They know they're only buying for 3 people compared to you buying for 5....this may be their way of mitigating any feelings of 'taking the piss' that naturally arise when family numbers increase?

You may feel 'dictated to' but they've just made a sensible decision - for them.
If you want to continue buying for BIL etc cos it makes you feel good then do it - that's the spirit of giving a 'gift'.
Just make it clear that you respect their choice not to buy for adults and you don't expect/want anything back.
What happens if one year you just don't feel like it/can't afford it - are you then going to have that conversation where you tell BIL he won't be getting a gift he didn't want in the first place?

Then remember this for when you start feeling angsty over the money spent on dc gifts for xmas/bdays/easter etc, as that will increase as they grow older...and you will always be spending 'more' on theirs than they may on yours.

There's a fine line between respecting other's boundaries and asserting your own rights - so much easier with work colleagues

[Winterhater]

I never understand these “it’s not fair that they only have one nephew to buy for not we have to buy for 3/4/26 nephews”. First of all, they gave their own 3 children to buy for as well as yours. You’re each buying for 4 children. Secondly, they have three children to support all year, you only have to buy them one gift each. If you think they have it easier, wait until you have your third...
Are you the ops family member?

[MulticolourMophead]

YANBU. Nine times out of ten it's those that have had the most benefit/have the most children that suggest this.

My sisters eldest is 18 this year and she thinks we should still buy for him as it wouldn't be fair to only buy for his siblings

My friend has a sister who suggested only buying for the DCs until they were 18. Then, when friend's youngest DN reached 18 and not receiving gifts, friend's sister declared she wasn't buying gifts anymore, despite the youngest children still only early teens. I think friend's mum stepped in and told the sister not to be so selfish. And the youngest carried on getting gifts until they too were 18.

[WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll]

They know they're only buying for 3 people compared to you buying for 5....this may be their way of mitigating any feelings of 'taking the piss' that naturally arise when family numbers increase?

What difference does it make, though, in terms of fairness? If they really wanted to do that, they would have suggested 'adults until they become parents and then children INSTEAD of parents' as soon as they had their own first child.

[Ponoka7]

"They could have said years ago"

I think people are now only having the courage to do this with the, environmental/anti consumerism culture that's emerging.

No one should be stuck doing the same thing for 18 years, that's unreasonable.

[DilysMoon]

YABU it makes total sense to me and we do this in our family. Theres a bit more of an even spread child wise 3/2 and 3/3 but the relief all round when it was suggested was palpable. As a pp said it's not only the expense it's the mental load as well, it's a huge relief to just plan and buy for each other kids. Plus do we as adults really need more stuff? We all get together and enjoy each others company over Christmas which is far more important imo. I also think it's fine for them to say this is what we're doing, end of discussion. It's their time and money. Perhaps also they don't want to receive "stuff", it's hard keeping on top of stuff with 3 kids in the house without people adding to it with unwanted gifts.

[Oysterbabe]

Sounds good to me, I don't care about getting presents and 2 fewer to buy.

[misspiggy19]

YANBU- I agree with you OP. Tightarses

[monkeymonkey2010]

What difference does it make, though, in terms of fairness? If they really wanted to do that, they would have suggested 'adults until they become parents and then children INSTEAD of parents' as soon as they had their own first child
True - but how many of us actually have these kind of discussions as part of 'normal' life?
Most people only come to these realisations when it's 'too late' as such....and those of us who are child-free, predicted the 'future' and tried to make it fair from the start get labelled 'tight'

[inthehammock]

For me it is exactly all this griping and agonising and tallying is exactly that takes the pleasure out of the Christmas experience.

It seems that you're complaining your SIL has to be adhered to, but yet you won't be happy unless everyone adheres to what YOU want.

The last couple of years we have done children only with both sides, and I agree with PP, it's been an immense relief. I've actually enjoyed Christmas gatherings much more, we've wasted less time on opening presents and spent more time chatting, playing games, eating - lovely. On my side we are the only ones with children, so I do buy a token consumable gift for the adults to mitigate the unfairness, but we are all hard up and got to the point of just exchanging vouchers as none of us could think of real gifts we want or need. I've never had enough spare money to get amazing gifts (and I'd rather spend more on something decent on birthdays) and it's miserable trying to scrape together something when the recipient isn't that fussed either.

On the other side, we have fewer children than DH's siblings but it's never occurred to me to feel hard done by! If anything, I'm relieved we have fewer children so quite happy really

[Novembernickname]

You'll be buying 2 presents less and they'll be buying one present less. So it's a win for you.