Sorry, ANOTHER babies at weddings thread, but I would like your views on this - AIBU?

[champagnesupernova]

I have a q good friend (ex-colleague, she was my boss but we've kept in touch) who's a good deal older than me, been big on career and so never got round to having kids.

Having been with her man for over ten years he finally gets round to popping the question and setting the date.

She tells me this the day I've arranged to meet her to tell her I'm pg with number 1. Big all round

Turns out the date of the wedding is 3-4 weeks after my baby's due.

As I said we're q good friends, so imagine my delight when a save the date card comes.

And then the invitation arrives addressed to Mr and Mrs Supernova (no mention of the bump, but it's not born yet)

I reply very early and in the reply card I put "Mr and Mrs Supernova and infant" and add a note saying I know planning a wedding is v complicated, just want to say that as it's so early and I"m planning on b/fing I'll have the baby with me, but I've heard they sleep for ages so hopefully it won't be a problem Wanted to check you're okay with this.

Met up with her today and said are you okay with this.

She's not and basically doesn't want us to come as she's worried about saying no to other people with babies and not us and annoying the other guests (most of whose kids will be grownup)

I am really really really by this.

She invited us. Knowing we were going to have a brand new baby. She could have just not invited us and said they were having probs with numbers and I wouldn't have been any the wiser. Now I feel that I've misread the invitation and that I've been UNINVITED.

AIBU?

LittleBella- I thought it was funny too!!
esp. the bouncer for bables
We have probably offended someone now....

i know you weren't fixated and fair play you have your say about what you think of it, kew, but the thread seems to have become all about the one comment (and more specifically the OP's lol response to it) which i think is taking things too far. it's a bit of a shame because unlike most AIBUs the OP actually does seem to have thought it all through and come to (imo) a good and reasonable position on it.

anyway, tough luck, you do have my sympathy, i thought my world was going to end when they told me i wasn't going to have children in all likelihood, and i know i am very grateful and lucky to have dodged that bullet. i still snorted at the innappropriateness of cod's joke and it doesn't make me the sort of person who laughs at people's disabilities. nor am i laughing at your infertility or anyone else's, believe me.

x-posted on the sympathy. again, i knew what you meant, i've kinda been there a bit myself. magic wand broken, sadly.

I really don't wish to inflame matters but I do think it should be pointed out that there was absolutely no implication in the OP that the bride had tried to have a child and been unable to do so.

The OP may, of course, be wrong, and in dealing with the bride she should be sensitive to that possibility. But Cod's remark was made, I think, on the understanding that this woman had chosen not to have children, and while it was shocking (and therefore funny) it was not cruel.

There may be an argument that infertility on a forum like MN is off-limits for, humour-wise, and it may well be a debate worth having - but that is a different matter.

1. strike 'for' in 'off-limits for'
2. if I'd seen the previous few posts I wouldn't have revived the argument, sorry.

I agree Batty- excellent post

"it's a bit of a shame because unlike most AIBUs the OP actually does seem to have thought it all through and come to (imo) a good and reasonable position on it. " - I agree Aitch and said so in my post. But it not entirely fair to those including me to say they are being unreasonable fixating on the remark made by Cod. If you're going to make a comment like that it surely must be blindingly obvious that soeone was going to find it offensive. Its not fair to then expect those who were hurt by it to not say so.

In fact I thought I was massively restrained in my original post. I had no view on whether the woman in question wants/can have children - I just found it upsetting that the phrase "barren bitch" was trotted out for comic/shock effect.

No I don't thnkjokes about such things should be banned form a site such as MN - it adds to my view of people when they post this kind of thing so its helpful in a way plus I don;t think anything should be banned that isn't illegal. I feel entitled to have my say about it though (as you mention Aitch) even if it subsequently dominates the post.

Apologies to the OP and all, but she seems quite sensible I hope she won't mind.

no no nooooo, i meant it's not fair on the OP that it's all about whether she's a good friend/person because she laughed at the crack, that's what's not fair imo.

say what you like about the crack itself, i'll happily agree or disagree. but imo it is pompous and extreme to infer that people who laughed at it would enjoy poking fun at people with disabilities or would say the same thing to someone's SiL, that's going too far.

I really wish everyone could be like my great friend at university who said, "We're really, really tight for space, so we're technically not inviting children, but if you're going to have problems finding babysitting, do let us know - I'm sure we can work something out as we'd far rather you were there than not."

It sounds like you've got things pretty straight in your own head now, but IMNVHO, YANBU, at least not entirely - but perhaps next time, ring the bride and just ask her straight out before you put it on the reply card.

We were the first of our friends (by several years) to have kids and hence are now very practised at the art of negotiating the wedding invitation. We have learned that when people write "Dr & Mrs", contrary to all these posts about "well, it only said Mr and Mrs on the invitation", they DO sometimes mean "Dr and Mrs and Many Offspring". So if it's not clear from the invitation or accompanying documentation whether children can be accommodated, I usually ask (as best I can, in a way that makes it clear that we are not going to be mortally offended if they aren't - usually that means via a friend or relative so as not to make the happy couple feel they are being put on the spot).

But as many other posters say, you'll almost certainly be better off at home with a babe that small. I've been to weddings with a tiny baby, and it's really only OK IF you can escape rapidly if you really need to.

I agree that the possibility of the bride having tried to have kids should be borne in mind. She's been with her fiance for ten years and the OP says she has 'never got round' to having kids - how can you be sure that you would know if she had tried or not? The main reason (apart from simple courtesy) that I think it's important to respect a 'no kids' rule for a wedding, and not try to wheedle a way round it or make out that the bride and bridegroom are being selfish about it, is that there could easily be something in the background that as the invited person one knows nothing about: recurrent miscarriages, infertility, stillbirths, illness - all sorts of things.

If someone wants no children at a wedding it could easily be because it would ruin their day in a way that isn't anything to do with just noise or hassle - if it is to do with regret at having no children themselves, then a newborn would be pretty much the worst age of child to bring, not the best!

The bottom line is that they have a perfect right to say no kids, and you have no right to be huffy about it and take offence and say that they just aren't making an effort etc. etc. and should put up with your child - but conversely you also have a perfect right to say you can't go at all if you can't take your child(ren), and they have no right to be huffy about you not going and take offence and say you're just not making an effort. You often can't know what all someone's personal reasons for not wanting children there could be; they can't really know what the implications of childcare and travelling will be for someone's children. (So, on the positive side, it's actually all quite symmetrical! )

Which is not to say I don't sympathise with the OP about it being a bit embarrassing and difficult, cos I do.

I thought this site was mumsnet not codnet.
Seems it is ok for her to say what ever she likes and be defended for it cause shes funny ha ha ha

It was a sick comment, not funny.

Does it really matter whether the OP's friend is a childless woman (for whatever reason) or whether she had a child herself?

At the end of the day, the OP's friend just does not want to have the OPs child at the receipt, and that is her decision.

I know of parents who have had the same thing, they have their own child at the reception but not their friends.

(Though I pesonally dont think "barren bitch" is an appropriate comment, but only because my best friend suffers from something which will make it very difficult for her to conceive, and I dont think I would find it funny should anybody say that about her, but it speaks more about the OP thinking it was funny than the poster IMO)

I think it's not quite fair to suggest that no children weddings are only organised by child haters.

It's partly practical. If you have, say, 50 people and half of them have kids, that really ups the numbers. And hotels can be extremely tight about charging per head even if the children are unlikely to eat much. And places that can really cope with charging infants and elderly relatives and dancing adults are often quite big and so the price goes up again.

Sorry, didn't realise that it was all sorted. Read more of the thread - and how acrimonious it was. Ladies, lighten up.

Actually as someone pointed out earlier, legally (at least if you marry in a church) a wedding is a public event, not a private one. Therefore technically you can't ban children, or any other section of society from your ceremony. You can ban the guests you want from bringing their own children, but the mad ole women of the parish who choose to come along and sob into their handkerchiefs (and they are still a feature of many properly traditional weddings) are at liberty to borrow any child known to them and bring them along. No vicar is going to ask them to leave and long may it continue.

Aitch - perhaps I am pompous. But I do also have a disability and the pain and grief caused by the underlying condition is nothing compared to that of infertility. I know you found the comment funny and would never think of yourself as the sort to "make a mockery of the unfortunate" - but really, so what. It was not a kind remark and few people would find it amusing if used about someone they genuinely care for.

The OP makes it clear that her friend is a good deal older and so it is not much of a leap for anyone to think that children might not be an option for her.

By StealthPolarBear on Sat 01-Mar-08 13:38:46
PMSL obm!
Reminds me of when I worked as a waitress, a family came in with a baby a few days old in a car seat - my friend asked if they needed a high chair

My manager did this yesterday!!

or that she is a career woman who doesn't want children? which I would have thought more likely, judging from the OP.

I cannot believe that this thread has ended up being a debate as to wether the bride to be has tried for children and not been able to have them, therefore perfectly justifying her handling of this awkward situation.

Yes, sometimes, people do chuckle at even the most tactless, ill advised quips. The mere shock factor of such an outrageously bad taste 'joke' will often produce an initial 'oh my god, I can't believe she said that' kind of laugh.
It does NOT equate to making fun of disabled people. nor does it say that the person who made the comment in the first place is clueless about how hard it is, and what people go through, when they are affected by disability or infertility. ( hardly the same thing btw! ) How do any of you know if Cod ( in this instance since she posted it ) has had problems with fertility herself.? you dont know, at all. regardless of wether a person making such a comment has experience of the subject they are using, is irrelevant.

I am disabled myself. I would not liken that comment, and anyone who chuckled at it, to be racist, ageist, or anything else, 'ist'. I do not have the onus on disability, nor does anyone who has fertility problems, have the onus on anything that touches on that subject. you may not find it amusing, you may feel it touches a raw nerve for you, it doen't mean you can then decree that no-one is allowed to mention it in any way until they have experienced it for them selves. I'm not thinking about any one in particular here btw. More of a general observation really.

This kind of thing happens alot on MN. I've seen it many many times. People jumping on a slightly mis judged comment, or flippant throw away comment. Taking the moral high ground, as its an obvious and easy thing to do, in such situations. It actually comes across as not being genuine, and just an easy way to 'win' and argument.

Message withdrawn

i totally agree aswell. my own cousin had a wedding where he did not invite his own child.

YABU - I think it would be rude to turn up at a wedding with children or babies assuming they are invited and it is ok, when the invitation did not mention them.

So is it OK to laugh at disabled people if Cod makes an "outrageous" comment that is just so shocking it's funny? 'Cos that seems to be the only reason for that incredibly asinine comment being defended.

Mocking other women because you think they have chosen not to have kids is the "adult" equivalent of teasing someone because they're still a virgin when you're at school, and when you do it in a way that uses infertility as a term of abuse you might as well just sign yourself up as a misogynist.

I also absolutely fail to see anything remotely witty, inventive or shocking about calling someone a "barren bitch". You'll see it all over the Internet on many general purpose sites where attacking women for their choices and misfortunes is ten a penny. It's just sad and pathetic, even if it comes from a regular poster with a contrived style that many here appear to find uproariously funny.

As for the actual subject of this thread, Kaishay is dead right. No matter what you think about a host's choices for their event, your only input when you receive an invitation is to either accept or decline it. You're under no obligation to go, but if you go you must abide by the decisions the hosts have made about the kind of event they want.

You can think that newborns are no hassle for anyone. You get to put that belief into practise when YOU host a party. Your feelings on the matter are utterly irrelevant to events that you are not hosting.

I say this as someone who loves kids, who had around 30 kids at my wedding last year, who thought it adorable that my normally silent niece (well she became my niece during the ceremony I guess) cooed the whole way through the service, and who accommodated EVERYONE who asked if they could bring an extra person.

Those were my choices, that's the kind of wedding I wanted but I don't think I was under any obligation to do any of those things and neither, it appears, did any of my guests who were very appreciative of the fact that I was being accommodating and didn't appear to think they had the right to dictate the terms of event to me.

I included the names of the children who were invited on the invitations and for people who were pregnant at the time the invitations went out I put something cheesy like "and new arrival" or something.

I have to say I would have been pretty put out by anyone who responded to an invitation by including a name I hadn't included, even though it's unlikely I would have said no had they asked. It's one of the rudest things you can do as someone invited to any party and I think any criticism of the bride in this case is unfair as she'd basically already been treated in an incredibly presumptuous way by the OP.

yes, it is. if it's a funny joke. imo. one of the points of humour is to prick pomposity as i understand it.

what was funny about cod's line was a. that she said it at all. b. that it was so out of context. c. that it was so baldly put.

no-one is saying that infertility is funny, no one, but hypothesising about the woman's fertility or otherwise (and more particularly taking offence on her behalf) is pretty much a dead end because i happen to know she's a careerist ball-breaker who hates children and laughs at infertile women and disabled people. (no i don't, of course, but it's as likely as the other stories.)

and in any case, what i object to more is the fact that the OP has been vilified for daring to laugh at her mate, and anyone who snorted with laughter at cod's line has been identified as a mocker of the disabled.

amen to susiecutie's post.

No I DID NOT SAY ITS OK! I myself did NOT laugh at it either. I was trying to explain, how and why people do end up laughing, or chuckling at such a comment. nothing more, nothing less.

I do not find it uproariously funny either. Nor do I find the same of Cod. I generally dont come across her posts, very often, and rarely understand them when I do.

I was also saying that just because I am disabled, doesn't mean that other people who are not disabled, cannot understand what its like, or understand how I may feel. AS was implied by someone, who said that until you have gone through the pain and upset of finding out that you are infertile, of have fertility problems, then you cannot comment or jest about the subject, or words to that effect.

How you can say that you see nothing remotely shocking about someone calling someone else a barren bitch, beggars belief! Of course it is shocking!

I'm not getting into this, thank you. I dont appreciate being attacked, when I was merely trying to put across another point of view. I am neither sad nor pathetic either. And you have the audacity to call the OP rude.