To not invite my DDs friends.

[Julz1622]

I have booked a socially distanced visit from Santa and Anna and Elsa on Christmas Eve for my daughter (8) and the baby (10 months) I live in a block of flats, and I was telling one of the mum's of one of daughter's friends about it. She said oh let me know what time they are coming and I'll send 'name' across. She has also told a few of the other mums on the block. Now I know some people will think I am being selfish, but I've paid £50 for them to come visit my daughter, I don't want all the kids congregating and ruining it for my daughters.

Semantics dear, that's all it is - the sentiment is the same, you think the OP shouldn't have this treat to herself.

Semantics doesn’t mean that. There is a material difference between whether someone has to share and whether someone (in the opinion of another person) should choose to share because it’s the right thing to do.

Semantics dear, that's all it is - the sentiment is the same, you think the OP shouldn't have this treat to herself
It's not even a case of arguing semantics. The word should absolutely does convey duty and obligation.

Saying 'I don't they are obliged, I just think they should' equals the amusing position of 'I don't think they are obliged, I just think they have a duty or obligation to'

@Julz1622 94% agree you are not being unreasonable. Tell them it’s one of your children’s Christmas gifts and you’ll pass on their contact details if they want to do the same for their children.

It's only a bit of play acting, flavia and won't be especially 'magical' for £50. You have to pay a lot more for convincing special effects (I googled). Other people can dress up as Santa or whatever they choose if they want to. Plenty do actually and it's quite fun. The op was silly to tell anyone about it.

Saying 'I don't they are obliged, I just think they should' equals the amusing position of 'I don't think they are obliged, I just think they have a duty or obligation to'

Not so. There are multiple (branching) meanings to “obliged”. You can be obliged by law or you can be obliged by morality. In this case that distinction is crucial, because I am obviously aware that the OP is not obliged by law, or this wouldn’t be a debate. Since it is a debate, and she can do as likes, she can only be obliged by morality if she feels such an obligation. So it is meaningless to say she isn’t obliged. We know that. The question is whether she should feel differently.

@LolaSmiles

saraclara I agree with you.

There's loads of thread where adults feel like they are obliged to invite people who they either dislike or who are toxic to events in order to keep the peace. There's loads of threads where adults feel pushed or guilt tripped into sharing possessions (eg expensive items & baby things or money) with CF. There's loads of threads where adults feel they aren't able to stand up for themselves because they have been taught that 'being nice'means to roll over and have their boundaries ignored.

But apparently children should have even special family treats taken over by any family who feels like pushing their children into something they weren't invited to.

@LolaSmiles this with (Christmas) bells on. Which is exactly why I have an issue with the whole "be kind" thing - it's usually aimed at women and actually means STFU

jessstan1

They’re little children and will believe it’s magical even if they can see Elsa’s weave.

@flaviaritt

There's loads of thread where adults feel like they are obliged to invite people who they either dislike or who are toxic to events in order to keep the peace. There's loads of threads where adults feel pushed or guilt tripped into sharing possessions (eg expensive items & baby things or money) with CF. There's loads of threads where adults feel they aren't able to stand up for themselves because they have been taught that 'being nice'means to roll over and have their boundaries ignored.

And you won’t find me on those threads arguing the contrary. This is an exceptional situation. On Christmas Eve, in lockdown, in a year where children have had few treats, Father Christmas is going to turn up for a single child.

I find that really quite horrible. I don’t care who’s paying for it.

It's not a single child. The OP has a baby too

@flaviaritt

Semantics dear, that's all it is - the sentiment is the same, you think the OP shouldn't have this treat to herself.

Semantics doesn’t mean that. There is a material difference between whether someone has to share and whether someone (in the opinion of another person) should choose to share because it’s the right thing to do.

And YOU chose to use the word "should" be you are arguing it isn't the same thing as "obliged" 😂

And YOU chose to use the word "should" be you are arguing it isn't the same thing as "obliged" 😂

It is not the same thing as actually obliged. It is just my opinion that she is morally obliged. So people stating she isn’t as some sort of justification aren’t really making an argument.

Which is exactly why I have an issue with the whole "be kind" thing - it's usually aimed at women and actually means STFU
Oh yes! I hear you.
"Be kind" tends to translate to:

• 'don't challenge someone for being an arsehole'
• 'put up with someone continually putting upon you'
• 'end up carrying other people's emotional burdens'
• 'once you've done one act of kindness the person should be able to keep taking and taking, and you should tolerate it because you've somehow ended up responsible for propping up part of their life'
• 'smile nicely at so called jokes that are really just misogyny'
• 'tolerate men accidentally (cough) being a bit too close / touching you'
• 'get roped into doing endless lifts for CFs who don't want to look after their own child'
• 'accept being walked all over at work or overlooked'
• 'don't make a fuss if there's maternity discrimination'
• 'accept your parents or in laws disrespecting your home and ignoring your boundaries'
• 'remember that you come bottom of the pile so smile nicely whilst all the above happens... there's a nice woman'

How exactly am I CAUSING other people's kids to miss out. Their parents are more than welcome to book the experience for them.

And my main point was that when I told her about it (because she brought it up) she said "I'll send her over", not oh would you mind if my daughter came over. That's what I feel slighted by.

LolaSmiles

I have very strong boundaries. This just falls on the wrong side.

It is not the same thing as actually obliged. It is just my opinion that she is morally obliged. So people stating she isn’t as some sort of justification aren’t really making an argument

What do you mean 'actually obliged'

Obliged: make (someone) legally or morally bound to do something.

As you correctly said, this is evidently not a legal issue, which leaves us with you amusing position of being simultaneously not obliged and also obliged.

So your position is still 'I'm not saying she is obliged, I just think she SHOULD (which is about duty and obligation)

Dear me.

Really you're just of the view that parents shouldn't do a nice Christmas treat for their child unless they are willing to pay for every other kid in the vicinity to have the same treat.

That's fine. It's just hilarious seeing someone try to argue that parents have a moral obligation to deny their own children something nice if they aren't willing to offer the same treat to any child nearby.

How exactly am I CAUSING other people's kids to miss out. Their parents are more than welcome to book the experience for them.
Because by doing something nice for your children you are the most meanest meanie that has ever existed at Christmas time.

Obliged: make (someone) legally or morally bound to do something.

That is what I mean. People are using “she isn’t obliged” in one sense, to argue with me on the other. It’s not semantic, it’s fundamental.

Really you're just of the view that parents shouldn't do a nice Christmas treat for their child unless they are willing to pay for every other kid in the vicinity to have the same treat.

And you can only support your argument by pretending this is the case.

YANBU at all, but this is a treat for your daughters that could well end up causing you more trouble than it’s worth and not being a surprise at all for your daughter if friends mum mentions it to her daughter and others in the flats beforehand
I take it you’ve already paid the full amount, but if you haven’t I think I’d be inclined to try and cancel, or at the very least try and find somewhere other than your home where the meeting can take place

Although no one knows what if any covid restrictions will be in place on Christmas Eve I can’t believe that Father Christmas, Anna and Elsa will be happy to see more children than they expected for their socially distanced visit.

I dread to think what 'Elsa's weave' is . Please don't explain!

@Julz1622

And my main point was that when I told her about it (because she brought it up) she said "I'll send her over", not oh would you mind if my daughter came over. That's what I feel slighted by.

I think she probably just said that off the top of her head, an instant reaction, without giving it much thought. She certainly wasn't slighting you. However there was no need for you to tell her! If you hadn't, it would have just happened and probably nobody except you and your eldest would have seen, all other kids being in their own homes, maybe asleep.

@LolaSmiles - she's done the same thing throughout - called the neighbour cheeky but then called OP a tighter than a duck's arse Scrooge because OP called the neighbour cheeky. The doubling down, then back-pedalling, then twisting what she said to try to mean something else whilst trying to prove what a wonderfully hashtag kind person she is has been rather entertaining.

Ohtherewearethen

I don’t understand why you think the neighbour being cheeky and the OP being a Scrooge are mutually exclusive possibilities.

YANBU at all OP. Your friend sounds like a cheeky fucker of the highest order. Can't believe some of the nutters on this thread suggesting you cancel the entire thing after forking out a considerable amount of money.

It sounds like a lovely experience for your DD, please don't let this spoil it.

And you can only support your argument by pretending this is the case

You: It is just my opinion that she is morally obliged.

Also you: that isn’t remotely what I have said. I have said they shouldn’t do this treat

So yes, you do think that the OP should either cancel a christmas treat for her children or allow all the other kids to join it for free.

And I'm under no illusions you're going to come back saying 'but this treat is different because it just is'

Parents are free to do Christmas treats for their children, paid for by them, for their children. They are not under any obligation to cancel treats because other parents have chosen not to do it. They are under no obligation to open their children's treats to everyone else.