Boycott my brother's wedding?

September 27, 2013 7:15 PM

What’s my moral obligation here regarding my brother’s wedding? A doozy inside.

This is a long, sort of complicated family drama. I’ll do my best to simplify.

I have two sisters (Older Sister and Twin Sister), and a brother. Brother is getting married to his fiancée in November. The wedding invitation had some variation of “please, no children”. This was a surprise to all of us, as they did not discuss the details with any of us before sending out the invites. But whatever, I don’t have kids, so not a huge deal for me. However, My Older Sister has two children (5 and 3), and my Twin Sister is currently pregnant (due in October). My brother also has a baby, who will be around 9 months by the time the wedding comes along.

Brother’s son will be at the wedding, and he is allowing Twin Sister to bring her newborn. Older Sister spoke to Brother to clarify whether or not her kids were invited, and they aren’t. Not only would it be a logistical nightmare for Older Sister to go to the wedding without them (the wedding is in a town about 2-3 hours away from where Old Sister and Brother live), but she is hurt that her children aren’t invited to the wedding, even though Twin Sister and Brother will have their kids in attendance. She told Brother that if her kids aren’t invited, she won’t be able to attend the wedding.

Ultimately, Brother/fiancée have not backed down, so Older Sister won’t be attending.

Here’s my conundrum: In my view, Brother/fiancée are being selfish, self-centered, and short-sighted by not allowing Older Sister’s kids to come to the wedding. I think Older Sister is justified in not going to the wedding. I’m angry with Brother/fiancée for not backing down and wonder what my moral obligations are here. Should I stand with Older Sister, make a point to Brother and not attend their wedding? Or do I attend the wedding, despite my reservations about Brother’s behaviors?

For what it’s worth, I’m much closer to Older Sister and Twin Sister than I am to Brother, but of course still love and care about Brother. I’m leaning towards going to the wedding for that reason, but I wanted a gut-check from wiser Mefites.

posted by anonymous to Human Relations (96 answers total)

There's a difference between babies and toddlers. Your brother and his fiance have every right to invite or not invite whoever they like to their wedding, particularly children - who aren't going to care that much anyway. Older sister can get a babysitter instead of chasing two toddlers around a church, failing to stop them from talking during the ceremony, not noticing when they tear up the hymn books or floral decorations because she's focused on the bride and groom. Last wedding I went to there were no small children. It's not uncommon.

Newborns however need to be breast fed.

So, let me get this straight. You want to not go to your brother's wedding because he and his fiance have made the entirely reasonable choice to not have small children there and you don't even have children, you're angry on your sister's behalf, when she could get a babysitter.
posted by b33j at 7:23 PM on September 27, 2013 [140 favorites]

Seriously? It's THEIR WEDDING. THey don't need a 5- and 3-year old running around, crying, being impatient, whatever. (FWIW, I am a mom.) Even if the kids are perfectly behaved, they've decided they don't want children at their wedding. Full stop.

Yes, it would have been lovely if they'd arranged childcare for everyone. No, it's not unfair that Brother's OWN CHILD is included, since it's his own freaking father who is getting married. No, it's not unfair that an infant is allowed since presumably that mom is breastfeeding.

Stay out of it. Your sister can find some childcare, either back home or in the town where the wedding is. Don't turn this into a nightmare. And don't, for crying out loud, boycott your brother's wedding over this. Jeez.
posted by BlahLaLa at 7:25 PM on September 27, 2013 [63 favorites]

is there some kind of baggage between brother & older sister? because it sounds like this regulation was designed against her specifically, to keep her away. I think you lose no matter what side you pick because you're being compelled to do just that, pick a side.
posted by thermonuclear.jive.turkey at 7:26 PM on September 27, 2013 [2 favorites]

It is understandable that Older Sister is hurt, most people probably would be in the situation. As a parent though I recognize that a party with toddlers and preschoolers in attendance is a lot different than a party with babies. With babies one need not worry so much about adult behavior, having child friendly food and drink choices, and so on. It may not be nice, or fair, but it is his wedding and his choice. I see no need for anyone to skip the wedding, that is what babysitters are for.
posted by Requiax at 7:27 PM on September 27, 2013 [6 favorites]

Your brother's rationale may be that a 9-month-old and a newborn are much more difficult for the parents to leave with a sitter than a 5 and 3 year old. Also, his wedding, his choice.

You have no moral obligation; what you have is emotional pressure from your siblings. Whether or not you go to the wedding is your choice. In your shoes, I would choose to go to the wedding of a brother I love and care for. Disagreeing with *one aspect* of how they're holding the wedding wouldn't stop me from attending.
posted by Pallas Athena at 7:28 PM on September 27, 2013 [2 favorites]

Why don't you go to the wedding with your Older Sister and trade off on babysitting so you can both attend at least part of the festivities? That way you can bitch to each other about his policy and feel morally superior, but not burn any family bridges?
posted by gatorae at 7:28 PM on September 27, 2013 [28 favorites]

Huh. It's surprising to me that you guys (that is, the siblings in question, not the other posters here) either aren't seeing or don't care about the difference between a pair of kids who are 5 and 3 and a newborn baby. The kids can be babysat without too much difficulty; the baby is a lot harder. The kids will likely run around (that is good! that is what kids do! but it doesn't belong everywhere and it sounds like your brother doesn't want that at his wedding); the baby will be there for the ride and baby-related problems can be contained by one person. I think there's a point where a mother-baby dyad is basically considered to be the mother, you know? Because newborns are pretty much dealt with by the mother, rather than willfully engaging with adults the way kids do.

Again, it is totally fine that kiddos run around and are their own people. In fact, it's amazing! But if your brother doesn't want them at his wedding, that is really okay. It would have been nice for him to tell your older sister personally instead of via invitation, but that's not such a big deal.

Your consideration of his 9 month old should not be included in these fairness calculations, because that's his kid and he is getting married. That's an automatic waiver. That's like having your dog as your ringbearer but not wanting everyone to bring their dogs. Just a different thing.
posted by c'mon sea legs at 7:28 PM on September 27, 2013 [20 favorites]

Seems a reasonable and not entirely uncommon request to me, though perhaps inelegantly made. You don't have any "moral" obligations either way. Feel free to boycott the wedding if you want, I don't mind.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 7:28 PM on September 27, 2013 [2 favorites]

Has your older sister asked you not to go? If she hasn't, then it seems like going is the option that will ultimately create the least drama and negativity. You're free to tell her that you think it's ridiculous and you're just going out of a sense of obligation. And remember, this occasion is about celebrating your brother's milestone in a way that he feels comfortable; it's not about you, your sister, or her children.
posted by cosmicbeast at 7:31 PM on September 27, 2013 [6 favorites]

Go to the wedding. I can see why your older sister would feel hurt, but it's not actually impossible to travel 2-3 hours with 2 small children for a night or two, just a PITA. Try not to feed into her anger on this topic.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:36 PM on September 27, 2013 [3 favorites]

I don't think your brother is being unreasonable. 5 and 3 are ages that are totally reasonable to leave with a babysitter. I believe some people handle this sort of situation by travelling with their kids and having a babysitter on-site or nearby.
posted by needs more cowbell at 7:39 PM on September 27, 2013

I have wondered when attending semi-formal weddings (i.e. not on the beach in flip-flops) at the number of young children in attendance. They inevitably are bored and their antics sometimes disruptive during some of the more solemn moments of what is, for the central figures, one of the most serious and meaningful events in their lives. Yes, it may be expensive to get a sitter if you're driving a distance, but out of respect for the event and what it signifies it seems that parents could suspend 'hurt feelings' in favor of honoring the wishes of those whom the event is celebrating.
posted by mumstheword at 7:40 PM on September 27, 2013 [16 favorites]

Unfortunately, I think you are the only one who is "self-centered, and short-sighted" in this case.

Brother (and fiancee) are entirely reasonable in asking guests not to bring their kids. Older Sister is entirely reasonable in deciding that she cannot attend the wedding because she needs to take care of her kids (though she would be best served by framing it that way, rather than as an ultimatum). I don't think it's reasonable for you to "make a stand" by boycotting a wedding for this issue.

The fact that Brother's son is invited makes absolutely no difference. None. Regardless of any rules on invitees, the bride or groom's children are obviously allowed. It has no bearing on whether other children should be allowed.

As other posters noted, a newborn is much different than toddlers. Many (most?) parents don't feel comfortable with leaving an infant that young with a babysitter. I would not expect parents to be able to attend the wedding if they had a newborn that they weren't allowed to bring. Toddlers are a different story entirely.

As for your moral obligations: perhaps consider why you are treating your brother's wedding like an international trade disagreement (complete with strategic pacts and sanctions), rather than the joyous occasion it should be?
posted by corvus at 7:41 PM on September 27, 2013 [30 favorites]

Older Sister is the one who is being selfish and self-centered. It is one night of childcare, for heaven's sake. I'd say "stay out of it," but you seem to be in it already - so I'd take it upon yourself to help bring the drama down several notches by defusing Older Sister. Brother's wedding is not her day.
posted by sevensnowflakes at 7:43 PM on September 27, 2013 [15 favorites]

I like children at weddings...to me it is super nice to see them all prettied up and part of the world...but not everyone likes that idea and we have to bend to the bride and groom on their day. You should go and try to convince your sister to go too. It's one day and you'll both be glad if you go ahead and 'conform'. :)
posted by naplesyellow at 7:44 PM on September 27, 2013 [1 favorite]

As the parent of a 5 year old who was formerly 3, I don't know why someone would want children of this age at a wedding.
You can hire a sitter in any town.
Brother is in the right.
posted by k8t at 7:47 PM on September 27, 2013 [4 favorites]

Your moral obligation, I think, is to dial down the drama (or at least not add to it) in order to help contribute to family harmony.

Seriously, imagine being on your deathbed (or your brother is on his deathbed): what will make you look back at your life with the least regret? Boycotting your brother's wedding, or attending your brother's wedding (hopefully along with all your siblings)?

This day is about only two people, and it's not the 3-year-old and the 5-year-old (or their parents).
posted by scody at 7:47 PM on September 27, 2013 [16 favorites]

The wedding is about your brother, not about your sister. And it only happens once.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:58 PM on September 27, 2013 [12 favorites]

While it's unkind that they are excluding family (the two kids) from their wedding and does not bode well for their relationship with these kids in the future (or any kids for that matter - some people just hate or even fear kids and don't know how to relate to them), I think you should probably go to the wedding. This is between your brother and your sister, not you.

It always pays to take the high road.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:58 PM on September 27, 2013 [1 favorite]

You and your older sister are in the wrong. Why is your older sister making this all about her and her needs? Stay out of it.
posted by These Birds of a Feather at 7:59 PM on September 27, 2013 [8 favorites]

My read is that they are inviting parents and their babies because they wouldn't be othewise able to attend but hoping slightly older children are left with the babysitter. It's more difficult and scary to find and trust someone to watch infants than it is to find someone to watch toddlers.

Your question is reasonable. Pick up the phone on a Saturday afternoon and call your brother and ask him.
posted by vapidave at 8:01 PM on September 27, 2013

new babies are luggage.

Toddlers and young kids are not, they are loud needy things that should not be out late and people feel weird acting like fun loving adults around.

They are also 100% easier to leave with a sitter. Your brother should AT MOST offer to pay for such sitters if he wants to be very very gracious. Otherwise no.
posted by French Fry at 8:03 PM on September 27, 2013 [9 favorites]

Brutal honesty? If you boycott your brother's wedding for this, you'll be the selfish and self-centred one.

Having a 'no kids' wedding, with exceptions for babies-in-arms, is entirely normal. You might not like it, but it is nowhere near being something boycott-worthy. I feel sorry for your brother that you are even considering this.
posted by Salamander at 8:04 PM on September 27, 2013 [16 favorites]

Attend the wedding - the drama needs to be dialed down.

As many have said, a no-kids wedding seems to be a common thing these days. It seems odd to me (big Catholic family weddings are my general experience), but yes, it's their wedding and they are within their rights to invite (and not invite) whom they wish.

Brother and sister-with-the-preschoolers should talk, though. It's one thing to have a no-kids wedding -- it's another thing to surprise a sibling of the bride/groom with it. FWIW, I think Brother should have given Sister a thoughtful heads-up phone call before sending the invites.
posted by pantarei70 at 8:23 PM on September 27, 2013 [1 favorite]

I don't think either your brother or sister are wrong. I think it's reasonable not to invite children to a wedding, and I think it's reasonable to have an exemption for a newborn. But I also think it's understandable for your sister to be upset about it.

If your sister lived far enough away that her trip to the wedding would span three or more days, I think I'd definitely take her side. But this sounds like a day trip or possibly an overnight one, which is a reasonable length of time for a sitter. Besides, a wedding bookended by two-hour car trips sounds like a preschooler's vision of hell, and I'd be surprised if the kids enjoyed it. I suspect your sister's outrage is more about her than about the children.

There's not a clear cut right answer to me, but I strongly suspect that your going to the wedding is the choice that is least likely to provoke further drama.
posted by Metroid Baby at 8:24 PM on September 27, 2013 [1 favorite]

Brother's kid is his own personal child, and it would be cruel not to have him there. The baby needs to be breastfed, so they can't really exclude the newborn.

However, many weddings are adult events. As in: drinking, shouting, wild times, or quite, sophisticated, events.

Kids get tired and cranky when they have to stay up late. Kids think that they're whispering when they're actually practically shouting. Kids fidget and need to run around every X amount of time. You can't swear or dance dirty with kids around, or you can't have a quite waltz with them "accidentally" running across the dance floor. Brother has effectively said that this is not a child friendly event, with two unavoidable exceptions. That is a perfectly reasonable request.

The world is not required to be child friendly at all times.
posted by Shouraku at 8:29 PM on September 27, 2013 [28 favorites]

A recent wedding we attended had a "no kid policy" at the ceremony and then a "no unattended kid policy" at the reception. Free daycare was offered at a side room in the reception hall. People could drop their kids off early, go to the ceremony, then come back for the reception. That way the kids could be included in some pictures, etc., and be considered a part of the wedding day experience even if 90% of the time they were with a babysitter in the side room.

If you want to be the savior, you can suggest it to your brother as a half-measure. I am not saying it is a great idea but might be worth the money to keep the peace.
posted by 99percentfake at 8:33 PM on September 27, 2013 [3 favorites]

You and your older sister are completely wrong. If you've said anything, apologize profusely. If you haven't, be glad you didn't.

Go to the wedding, be happy, and don't say a single word about the ridiculously misguided position that you argued in this post.

And if you're going to use words like selfish, self-centered, and short-sighted, use them to describe the right person... your older sister. The position she's arguing is horrific and she will regret it for eternity. She is about to destroy her relationship with family member because she wants to inject the chaos of toddlers into a wedding. That's horrific.
posted by grudgebgon at 8:34 PM on September 27, 2013 [6 favorites]

This is silly. Their drama has nothing to do with you. If you want to go to the wedding, go. If not, don't. But stay out of their squabble. It's none of your business. You do you.
posted by windykites at 8:41 PM on September 27, 2013 [1 favorite]

I'll differ from what almost everyone has said here.

I think you should take the high road and go to the wedding. Don't make a bad situation even worse.

That being said, I think your brother is being ridiculous. I can't for the life of me understand the "please no kids" phenomenon at weddings. I think it is no coincidence that the "please no kids" trend corroborates with the "I am a special snowflake and this is my special day" trend. Weddings didn't used to be that way in the past... this is a pretty recent phenomenon.

A wedding is a family celebration. Kids are family. Kids will be rowdy and loud and uncouth and that is life. You put up with it and smile and be patient because they are just being kids. Almost all of us were loud, rude, and obnoxious at some point as kids. We pay it forward by being patient with little ones, just like adults were patient and helpful to us.

If your brother and his future wife want to alienate their extended family by pulling something like this, then they are tone-deaf and clueless. Clearly they don't know how important your sister's kids are to her. If I were your sister, I'd be very upset too... my family would have been extremely upset had I pulled a card like that for my wedding a couple years back.

Still, take the high road, try to be a peacemaker, and go.
posted by Old Man McKay at 8:42 PM on September 27, 2013 [48 favorites]

You were invited. Your older sister was invited. You can certainly decline.

Your brother and new-sister-in-law are under no obligation to host children at their wedding. It would be nice if they did, but they aren't. They don't need to back down - they are the hosts. They can define the event as they want.

Don't use someone else's wedding to grandstand.
posted by 26.2 at 8:46 PM on September 27, 2013 [1 favorite]

You don't have a dog in this fight. Don't go looking for one.
posted by Sweetie Darling at 8:47 PM on September 27, 2013 [4 favorites]

If your brother makes an exception to the rule for your sister because she doesn't want to use childcare, then he'd look like a jerk to all the other people who don't want to use childcare either.

"But you let so-and-so's kids come!" would get really annoying as people try to bend the rules further and further until the rule is a moot point.
posted by treehorn+bunny at 8:53 PM on September 27, 2013 [3 favorites]

I agree with Shouraku. Your brother may just want his wedding to be an opportunity for adults to enjoy. Perhaps old friends or classmates will see each other and want to catch up. Maybe more mature-themed toasts and conversation will be made. Maybe people will want to stay late or go out afterwards to keep talking. With kids in tow, they may all be too inhibited to do that, and likely all the same people will never be in a room together again. I've seen perfectly well-behaved kids at weddings. However, the kids will be bored, and they'll end up being the centers of attention around the room whether they care or not. Let the adults enjoy the kindling and rekindling of relationships for a night by themselves.

In other words, I think it's a reasonable situation, whether your brother has the same idea as me or not.

Go to the wedding, and do what everyone else in the thread says, since they've covered it all.
posted by KinoAndHermes at 8:54 PM on September 27, 2013 [3 favorites]

My personal feeling is to agree with Old Man McKay, but that's not the way the world wags sometimes. Rather than get all drama llama about this, what about helping your sis out with a sitter and suggesting to your brother that he mollify your sister by talking to her, using the reasons given above, and promising her that he'll spend a bit of time with the kiddos as well as bag them up some cake specially for them.
posted by BlueHorse at 9:01 PM on September 27, 2013 [1 favorite]

Even if it's not a positive cultural trait to restrict weddings in this way, it's not outside of your brother's right to do so, either. It's probably more rude to make demands on how the wedding should be.

The classy thing to do is to go, and also for your sister go, even if you disagree with the decision. Being the bigger person in this case, and encouraging your sister to do the same, is the right thing to do. It usually is in most cases, but more-so in situations where the couple is probably doing their darnedest already to mitigate all kinds of hurt feelings that find a way of weaseling into a pretty important celebration.
posted by SpacemanStix at 9:04 PM on September 27, 2013 [2 favorites]

You have no moral obligation to insert yourself into a conflict between two siblings.

The nature of the conflict is almost completely irrelevant. I'm personally on your brother's side in so far as I think everyone gets to make the rules for their own wedding, no matter how much it may not align with other people's values. But that doesn't really matter; you cannot force them to share your values, you can only decide when someone's values so offend your own that you cannot be a part of their lives.

While you disagree with him, you don't seem to think this rises to that level. So in my opinion there's no moral imperative to not go unless your attendance would cause harm. If your brother was going to build the dance floor on top of endangered wetlands then you'd be contributing to the impact by attending. Going to this wedding will not make things worse than they already are that I can see - the kid battle has been fought and decided.

If you want to look for a moral imperative I'd be more inclined towards trying to help find a way for your sister to go, assuming this is truly a logistical issue and not a values dispute.
posted by phearlez at 9:06 PM on September 27, 2013 [1 favorite]

No kids weddings are incredibly common in my circle, and I even had one myself. However, a newborn is a different thing altogether, and although I had a "no children" wedding, both of my sisters had babies within 3-4 months of the wedding and you better believe I let them come. However, my one sister also had a 5 year old at the time who did not attend. So my situation is basically the same except my family, at least on be surface, understood the difference and never questioned the reasoning. It makes perfect sense to me. The 5 year old would have been running around misbehaving and the babies were perfectly fine, and I don't even remember them crying. It's just so, so different. Tell your sister to get a sitter. Are her in-laws in the area? It's really not that difficult of a situation... In high school I regularly watched kids that age well into the night for practically no money, and everyone was happy, so it's not even a money thing.
posted by ancient star at 9:07 PM on September 27, 2013 [3 favorites]

I think that you and your older sister are totally in the wrong here. Your brother is entitled to throw the party of his choice; if you don't want to go to that party, your recourse is to politely decline. You don't get to demand that he throw the party you wish he were throwing. Just as you don't get to demand that he hold the wedding in a venue near your house, or serve wine you like, or have the whole thing catered vegan, you also don't get to demand that he invite the people you'd like him to invite. Other people may disagree as to whether it's a good idea to invite children (I personally think it's a terrible idea to invite children to formal events, but that's my opinion), but that doesn't change the fact that it's your brother's right to invite or not invite whomever he chooses, and he's certainly not being immoral, or even rude, to do so.

Also, realize that not going (or, for that matter, giving him shit about not inviting kids) will not accomplish your stated goal of "mak[ing] a point to Brother." Skipping the wedding will not cause your brother to think, "gosh, maybe I was wrong about the kid thing." It will instead make him think, "gosh, two of my three siblings are selfish, entitled jerks, and maybe it's for the best that they're not here, since they'd probably just ruin things." You're not doing anything "moral" by taking a stand when taking a stand would not serve to make the situation any better and might very well serve to make the situation more contentious than it already was.

If you want to do something really good, tell your sister that you'll pay for a babysitter to stay with her kids in a hotel room, where they can watch cartoons and order room service and probably have more fun than they would at an adult-centered wedding. And then your sister can go to your brother's wedding, and your whole family can be together. That would be a really good, nice thing to do.
posted by decathecting at 9:10 PM on September 27, 2013 [25 favorites]

Your brother is wrong, badly wrong.

Your older sister will never get over this-- and she and your brother live in the same town!

Her children will probably never be friends with their cousin or cousins, and I'd say that's the way your brother (or his fiancee) must want it.

Slapping your sister in the face and breaking the family in two is a terrible thing to use a wedding to do, and a very ominous thing to use a wedding to do.

If they're being married by clergy with whom they have a relationship, I suggest approaching that person and trying to get him or her to help you keep your brother and the mother of his child from making such an awful and mean-spirited blunder.
posted by jamjam at 9:23 PM on September 27, 2013 [3 favorites]

Whatever you think of people who don't want kids at their weddings, taking it as a personal insult when someone doesn't want kids at their wedding is ridiculous. It's not about you, and it's not about your sister, and it's not about her kids.

Some people simply do not wish to risk the distractions and disruptions inherent in trying to make young children behave in public, surrounded by strangers, whilst not getting their usual naps or feedings in, for 6+ hours. Those problems are substantially lessened if the kids in question can't walk yet, and the options for having them babysat are substantially decreased at the same time, so babes-in-arms exceptions are pretty common.

This is a very common clash these days, between people who regard their weddings as 'their special day' and require everything to be perfect and people who regard their children as an inseparable part of their lives, never to be left in the care of anyone who isn't a blood relative. If the parents are just friends of the bride and groom, they can enlist a member of their own family to babysit while they attend the wedding, but if the parents are related to the bride and groom, all of the potential sitters are likely to be at the wedding. The only plausible solution to this is to enlist a 14-year-old cousin who doesn't want to go to the stupid wedding anyway and pay him/her to babysit the kids.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:37 PM on September 27, 2013 [8 favorites]

Weddings without kids are extremely common these days.

The people getting married have the right to not have kids running around if they so choose. Are they being selfish by doing so? Probably. It's their wedding day - they get to be selfish! They aren't making the decision to exclude kids from the wedding to inconvenience your sister, or hurt your sister, or annoy your sister.

Think about it from another perspective: extra people cost money. Extra kids cost money - and they probably cost more to have at the wedding than they do to hire a sitter. The kids won't really remember anything, or enjoy it. And knowing young kids - they will not be on their best behaviour all day.

Boycotting the wedding is just petty. You aren't morally obligated to do anything about your sister being uncomfortable with the existing childcare arrangements.
posted by Ashlyth at 9:40 PM on September 27, 2013

I think your brother's mistake here was not mentioning his no-kids policy to Older Sister in advance of mailing the invitations. Had he done that, with a phone call or something, he could've explained his rationale for excluding kids to her, expressed his unhappiness with how this decision affects her, asked for her understanding, made sure the invitation she received was unambiguous at first glance and not taken as an insult, etc...

That said, that mistake is a relatively minor mistake. This is definitely not a boycott situation.
posted by charlemangy at 9:47 PM on September 27, 2013 [4 favorites]

The answers here are highly personalized. There's nothing that says weddings are family affairs any more than that everybody should just elope because at the end of the day, marriage is just about finances and some legal rights.

I think you should stay out of it, not because of my feelings about children or families, but because "adults only" is a perfectly cromulent constraint on the invite list and ultimately you're choosing to be offended rather than be directly affected.

Reflect upon all the wedding questions that have been asked here about it being about the couple! However, reading between the lines, it seems that there might be a long tradition of dramz amongst OPs family, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
posted by rhizome at 9:48 PM on September 27, 2013 [5 favorites]

It's nice that you want to stand up for your older sister on principle, but this isn't your fight. As other people in this thread have said, it's their wedding and they have every right to dictate whom they want to attend. It's their day. It's completely reasonable for them to be concerned about children being disruptive -- especially if they have spent a great deal of time and money trying to prepare their perfect wedding day.

My wife's cousin got married three years ago. She and her future husband asked for my 2.5 year old daughter to be the flower girl. My daughter's twin brother kicked up a huge fuss during the ceremony and I carried him out of the room. He and I missed 9/10ths of the ceremony because he didn't settle down until the reception. And that's okay. Because the important people were in the sanctuary, and he and I weren't required. Better to have him out of the room than ruin a once-in-a-lifetime event. Young kids can't always sit still and behave, the way adults can. This is simply a fact of life.

This: decathecting: "If you want to do something really good, tell your sister that you'll pay for a babysitter to stay with her kids in a hotel room, where they can watch cartoons and order room service and probably have more fun than they would at an adult-centered wedding. And then your sister can go to your brother's wedding, and your whole family can be together. That would be a really good, nice thing to do."

....is fantastic advice. Sincerely. I urge you to take it.
posted by zarq at 10:07 PM on September 27, 2013 [2 favorites]

I'm a "weddings are for families and kids" kind of person, so I get the disappointment and frustration.

That said:

My advice is to attend the wedding AND figure out a way to persuade your sister to attend as well.

Show your brother you respect his values through living yours - by bringing your family together.
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:15 PM on September 27, 2013 [5 favorites]

I would decide to go to the wedding or not based on your relationship with brother, not with sister. Is the wedding at night? Is it at a fancy place? My one, two and three year olds were invited to my brother's wedding, but we chose to find alternative arrangements for them. I know that most of the time my children were miserable or misbehaving was because we put them in a position to fail. We kept them up past a bedtime, brought them to an adult gathering, didn't have the proper food choices, etc. I think your sister should thank your brother, but that may just be me.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 10:17 PM on September 27, 2013 [4 favorites]

Also, FWIW: this has nothing to do with being anti-kid. I love seeing kids at weddings. I would not choose a no-child wedding for myself. However, I am not your brother or his fiancée.

A wedding is a hosted social event and, like any such event, the hosts get to choose the guest list. It has nothing to do with bridezilla-dom (and trust me, if anyone loathes a 'zilla, it's me).

You and your sister are entitled to be hurt and taken aback and shocked. But your brother not having you in his memories of his wedding day, or in the photos, is a way bigger punishment than befits the crime.

Also, I think suggestions that it will ruin your sister's children's future relationships with your brother's family to be absolutely ridiculous. The kids are 5 and 3, they don't care whether they go or not. If this has any future impact at all, it'll be on the adults involved for being petty and stirring up drama.
posted by Salamander at 10:43 PM on September 27, 2013 [17 favorites]

Should I stand with Older Sister, make a point to Brother and not attend their wedding?

Seriously, do not not attend your own brother's wedding to make some sort of point. That's just...awful. This is your brother! It's his wedding!

I have 2 little girls, around the age of your sister's kids. Some events, like weddings, they are invited to. Some they aren't. And I totally get it if they aren't. Because they are squirmy and loud, and they can be totally ridiculous.

If any of my brothers were getting married and my girls weren't invited, I admit, I would be a little hurt. Because hey- it's a family celebration, and they're family, right? But....at this age they are also unpredictable and there could be shrieking, or meltdowns or prolonged temper tantrums .

So we would get a sitter and go. And if we couldn't get a sitter, then we couldn't go. But never would I expect one of my siblings to "join me" in not going to my brother's wedding.
posted by aviatrix at 11:25 PM on September 27, 2013 [2 favorites]

27 years ago, my siblings and I did not go to my aunts wedding because it was no kids. My siblings, my 1 year old self and my parents did not, do not and never will give a shit about it because none of us are drama queens with stacks of existing baggage. If you don't go to this it will be because you already hated your brother. In which case, feel free to pick this as your excuse, but don't think you are fooling anyone.
posted by jacalata at 12:57 AM on September 28, 2013 [27 favorites]

In case it wasn't clear: obviously, my parents did go, and left the three of us with a sitter at my grandparents house in the city the wedding was at, where we had travelled for the weekend.
posted by jacalata at 12:59 AM on September 28, 2013

You don't have any moral obligations here. Do what you want to do, but don't pick one course because you believe you have a moral (or any other kind of) obligation to protest by non-attendance; you certainly do not.
posted by J. Wilson at 2:13 AM on September 28, 2013

I don't think anyone is behaving in a way that I'd describe as immoral, but I also think your brother and older sister are both being kind of foolish. Just to go down the list:

• I don't always get married, but when I do, I invite all of my relatives, even the ones I might find annoying on my very special day. My nieces and nephews aren't just children of someone I know. They are my nieces and nephews. I have a direct relationship to them, and I'd feel totally ok inviting them, even if other people's children were not invited.
• I don't know your sister's kids, but mine love going to weddings, and have expressed as much from the moment they were old enough to talk. A 3 year old can definitely feel hurt if they are excluded from their uncle's wedding.
• If I were your sister, I would be offended that my kids weren't invited, but I'd also try to go anyway, because the high road leads to your brother's wedding even if he is acting like a jerk.

Regarding your own options, I don't think you're morally obligated to go. Just like your brother is allowed to control the guest list, you are allowed to decide if you attend or not. It's not very nice to skip a close relative's wedding hoping to prove a point though.

If you're really wanting to make a point to your brother, the best way would be to say to him directly, "Brother, I think you should invite Older Sister's kids, because excluding them is hurting her feelings and creating a lot of hassle for her." Then take the high road and attend the wedding.

If what you really, really want is to know whether or not this particular internet stranger thinks your brother is being selfish and self-centered, the answer is "absolutely, yes". Some degree of self-centeredness is allowed at weddings. You fill your quota of self-centeredness by throwing a giant party that costs thousands of dollars, with formal invitations, a ceremony, photographers, special outfits and special food, where you will be the center of attention for at least one full day, and with (most) all of your family and friends traveling in from all over, bearing gifts. Additional self-centeredness, like insisting that you will not accept the presence of shorter relatives who may be emotional or exuberant during the giant party, even though they aren't drunk like the other guests, is too much self-centeredness.
posted by Courage is going from failure to failure at 2:14 AM on September 28, 2013 [10 favorites]

Everybody's feedback about what they did or would do at their own weddings is irrelevant. Many wedding invitations are issued specifically excluding children. Generally, this is taken to not apply to infants-in-arms. It is taken to apply to all children out of arms. Parents commonly have to decide between sitters and wedding attendance. There is nothing crazy about this situation, it is just inconvenient for your siblings and there is really nothing to take a moral stand on here.

(I say this as someone who invited children to my wedding and in fact, did the Hokey Pokey for my first dance because all the little kids wanted to join in when we hit the dance floor.)
posted by DarlingBri at 2:47 AM on September 28, 2013 [8 favorites]

"They did not discuss the details with any of us before sending out the invites" --- um, sorry: there's no requirement that they do so; it's their wedding, they and ONLY they get to decide.

Should you boycott the wedding? Seriously? No, you should attend and smile: the drama here is entirely of your sister's making --- back out of it. If this were a casual wedding in their home or backyard, then the prohibition against children attending wouldn't make sense; if it's in a church, then it makes a TON of sense, as so many people have already said.

One thing you might suggest to your brother: most churches have baby rooms/Sunday school rooms appropriate for small kids --- could he hire a child-minder to stay there with the various kids? (Alternatively, hire a sitter to stay at his house/your parent's house with all the kids.) The parents wouldn't have to hunt for a sitter, and the wedding wouldn't be interrupted with toddlers screaming or running around.
posted by easily confused at 3:21 AM on September 28, 2013 [3 favorites]

This happened in my family quite a number of years ago. One of my cousins had a no kids invited wedding. I was a kid at the time and I remember being upset - I wanted to see the bride! The fallout was that my aunt and uncle boycotted the wedding and made it clear that they were extremely unhappy about this decision. Since they didn't go and they were going to drive my grandparents to the wedding, my grandparents ended up not going. So my cousins's grandparents weren't there to see her get married.

For years after the wedding the boycotting aunt and uncle (and their kids, presumably) didn't speak to my cousin whose wedding it was or to her parents. I think, but don't know, that my cousin didn't really interact with her grandparents for a long time after that.

My dad decided at the time to go to the wedding because he thought that while he disagreed with the no kids policy, it was their wedding and his family and that that was important. My mom stayed home with my sister and I. I don't remember how old we were.

Personally, I like kids and I think that there are ways to include them at weddings - whether by having a daycare arrangement at the venue or by having them not included during the ceremony but included for the reception, or just by celebrating the idea of family at a wedding and having kids running around.

I think that you should think about the long term fallout for not going. Your brother knows that the no kids policy is unpopular. People are crazy about wedding things - look at wedding etiquette questions on AskMe. Just go to the wedding. Tell your sibling with toddlers that you agree with her completely and that this is stupid but that you can't imagine not being there when your idiot brother gets married.
posted by sciencegeek at 3:23 AM on September 28, 2013 [1 favorite]

Tell your brother he's being unreasonable. Ask him to reconsider. But go to the wedding, and on the day of don't say a word about it.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:52 AM on September 28, 2013 [1 favorite]

Mod note: A couple of comments deleted. Just answer with your helpful advice if you feel like helping, and don't call people assholes, and don't shout. Come on.
posted by taz (staff) at 3:57 AM on September 28, 2013 [2 favorites]

I'm going to a "no kids" family wedding this weekend. I wish kids were invited because I think of weddings as events for the whole family. However, I'm not taking a "stand" because stands, boycotts, and ultimatums don't actually bring a family together. They create painful breaks. Attend the wedding because you love your brother. Encourage your sister to do the same.
posted by Area Man at 4:31 AM on September 28, 2013 [1 favorite]

I think there's perhaps a case to be made that the reason no-kids policies at weddings can seem annoying (weddings are about embedding a relationship into the fabric of a wider society, not simply "it's their party they can do what they like!!") is actually the same reason that you should probably go; ie., you're involved in something that in its best form is bigger than you, your siblings and your interpersonal tensions, however justified.
posted by oliverburkeman at 5:20 AM on September 28, 2013 [3 favorites]

I feel like this part is being overlooked, which surprises me given the generally-sensitive-to-privilege bent of MeFi. Emphasis mine: "Not only would it be a logistical nightmare for Older Sister to go to the wedding without them (the wedding is in a town about 2-3 hours away from where Old Sister and Brother live), but she is hurt that her children aren’t invited to the wedding, even though Twin Sister and Brother will have their kids in attendance. She told Brother that if her kids aren’t invited, she won’t be able to attend the wedding.

There is no drama described or implied in Older Sister's refusal (it's reasonable she feel hurt, she wants to go and can't), and the OP has not referred to discussing her decision with Older Sister in any way, so I have no idea where the assumptions about some sort of being in cahoots against Brother are coming from.

In today's economy, it is both highly likely and probable that "logistical nightmare" means that Older Sister cannot afford childcare, whether financially or logistically, i.e. since all other family are invited to the wedding, who would be around to care for the kids for free?

I had never heard of kid-free weddings until reading this post and all the comments. I remember going to weddings as a young child and loving them. All of my friensd' marriages were with young children in attendance, and seeing their enthusiasm was part of the charm. Adults took turns watching over other young kids. At receptions, there was always at least one adult who didn't want to drink or party much who offered to look after the kids too.

Would you be able to ask your brother if some arrangement like that could be worked out? He doesn't have to be in charge of it; you could use your energy surrounding this to help arrange it yourself. And if he refuses even that, tell him in a measured, compassionate way that you're disappointed it means Older Sister won't be able to attend for that reason alone. You should still go yourself, but I do think it's worth hashing out in reasonable, relatable specifics that keep weight off Brother and let Older Sister be able to attend.
posted by fraula at 5:31 AM on September 28, 2013 [2 favorites]

I find it surprising that most answers here are using etiquette technicalities to excuse your brother's behavior (it's his event, he's allowed to invite whomever he wants) and then playing the family guilt card to say you should go (if you don't go you'll create a rift in the family). Really your brother has already created a rift in the family by excluding some members of the family because of their age. Sure it's his "right", but it's not surprising that it annoys people. If your expectation is that weddings are for family then it can seem offensive to exclude family. If Uncle Bob weren't invited because he always gets drunk and makes racist comments, that would be legal under etiquette rules but would bother those who think it's unfair because the other aunts and uncles were invited. I also find it odd to argue that the no-kids rule isn't personal. It's excluding some family members - of course it's personal.

If we're going to answer based on etiquette rules, you always have the right to decline an invitation. If you think weddings should be inclusive of family and don't/ want to participate, you can do that. It's up to you.
posted by medusa at 5:49 AM on September 28, 2013 [3 favorites]

I feel like this part is being overlooked, which surprises me given the generally-sensitive-to-privilege bent of MeFi. Emphasis mine: "Not only would it be a logistical nightmare for Older Sister to go to the wedding without them (the wedding is in a town about 2-3 hours away from where Old Sister and Brother live)... She told Brother that if her kids aren’t invited, she won’t be able to attend the wedding."

It's not being overlooked. The invitation is to Older Sister and presumably her spouse or partner. The choice are: they get a sitter and both come; one stays home with the kids and the other attends; neither attends. Which of those options she chooses or is possible for her family unit isn't really the problem of the engaged couple.

And geeze, for all we know, maybe they're throwing a child-free wedding because Older Sister's kids are holy terrors and they would actually prefer she not attend at all if her attendance means bringing the kids. We don't know and our guesses make no difference.

OP, here's a possible:

Offer to go to the wedding not as a guest, but so you can babysit your Older Sister's kids while she goes.
posted by DarlingBri at 5:55 AM on September 28, 2013 [2 favorites]

Big missing piece of info from question -- did Older Sister ask you to skip this wedding? If not, I certainly think you should go. If so, I think she's wrong to ask you that, and you should still go. It's certainly not wrong for her not to go!

As others have said, it's your brother's party and he can invite whoever he likes. Yeah, in my world, not inviting your own nieces and nephews to your wedding is pretty weird, but -- it's his party. It would be obnoxious if he were mad at Older Sister for not coming, but as far as we can see in the question, he's not.

Most important: the stakes are not too high here. Ten years from now, what's going to matter to you is not whether you were physically present to eat a salmon filet while he had his first dance, but what kind of relationship you (and your kids, if any) and he (and his kids, if any) have with each other.
posted by escabeche at 5:57 AM on September 28, 2013

It just seems like a cultural difference. Some people include children at weddings; some don't. Who knows, maybe your brother's fiancee's family is one of those no kids at weddings ones. Maybe they would be equally horrified if toddlers were invited. Maybe your sister's children are wonderful, but your future sister-in-law has some holy terrors in her family, and to avoid a mess, they made an across the board rule. I think offering to babysit or helping to ease your sister's "logistical nightmare" are good solutions to the problem. Either way, go to the wedding. This is just one small thing in life; it's not worth taking a stand on.
posted by bluefly at 6:11 AM on September 28, 2013 [1 favorite]

You ought to not boycott your brother's wedding over this. Stay the hell out of this tiff between him and your sister. Otherwise, you're going to be a full participant in the melodrama, and you'll make it worse.

Now for my personal example story:

My wedding was adults-only, with the exception of my husband's little sister, and the two children of the officiant. I'm pregnant right now, so it's clear we don't hate children. But we had good reasons for excluding kids. We were NOT thinking, "this is OOOUR DAY and everyone has to act like we want". Most of the already-cited reasons apply - the mayhem, the fact that weddings are boring for children, the fact that our wedding venue was not kid friendly, etc.

One of my friends left her kids with her husband and drove a few hundred miles to our wedding. She drove at least 2-3 hours, for comparison to your sister. And then had the first relaxed, responsibility-free night she had had in a long, long time. She knew we loved her kids, so she wasn't insulted. Her husband ended up staying home with the kids, instead of hiring a babysitter, because he got all, "HOW DARE YOU SPURN THE FRUITS OF MY LOINS!" She thought he was being ridiculous, and she went without him.

Despite that we only had those three aforementioned kids at our wedding, and despite that they were very well-behaved kids, they still got in trouble. Probably because they were bored out of their minds.

And for all this talk about weddings being "a family event" - well, not everyone has a good family, or a strong connection to their families. My decent family members are outgunned by my shitty family members. Even though our family was at our wedding, our wedding was not a family event. It was a friends event. It was a party for our friends, and secondarily for us. There's nothing wrong with that, despite that people with good, stable families will never understand that reasoning.
posted by Coatlicue at 6:54 AM on September 28, 2013 [14 favorites]

Nowadays, at least in my experience (as someone in the US who planned a wedding a few years ago and has attended a bunch of friends' weddings recently), there are tons and tons of options when it comes to weddings: you can ask your guests to dress black tie formal, you can ask your guests to camp out with you in the woods; you can invite no guests, 5 guests, 50 guests, or 500; you can have a traditional religious ceremony or have an Internet-ordained officiant; you can think of weddings as a big all-family event, or you can think of weddings as a beautiful celebration for adults. And so on. People don't generally plan a wedding with an agenda of, "How can I hurt my sister?" but they also very often have way too many details to sort out to assess the guests one-by-one in terms of, "Will this wedding perfectly accommodate her preferences?" even for guests who are family. Most people find a few reasons to make exceptions or accommodations--arranging for a vegan meal for one guest, making sure another guest's wheelchair will have a reserved space in the venue, etc.--but generally make a blanket plan and stick to it.

I don't know what's going on between your brother and sister. Allowing a niece and nephew to attend an otherwise child-free wedding strikes me as a reasonable thing to do, but maybe the bride's family includes a ton of little nieces and nephews and the couple is worried that accommodating your sister's kids will open a can of worms. Arranging childcare for one night, even if it's overnight, also seems like a reasonable thing to do, but maybe your sister's kids have some type of medical or behavioral issue that makes that extra hard. I have no idea. Hopefully they'll be able to work this out. Your boycotting the wedding just adds drama. Don't add drama.
posted by Meg_Murry at 7:14 AM on September 28, 2013 [1 favorite]

If you want to make peace in the family you could offer to pay for an all-day and overnight babysitter for your older sister if its the expense that's making it difficult for her.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:17 AM on September 28, 2013

As someone who had a largely child-free wedding for the reasons that Johnny cites above, and also because once you start inviting SOME kids you have to invite ALL THE KIDS (and there were way too many kids for our budget) - you have no idea why your brother isn't inviting kids.

Maybe it's because his bride will find it stressful. There were family people who were not invited to my wedding because it was NOT a joyous idea to have them around. As others have said, there may be kids/parents/family people on her side that can't be counted on to behave like adults, or supervise their kids. The point is YOU DON'T KNOW WHY. And, on top of that, your brother has actually no obligation to tell you, or anyone else. That is a decision they made as a couple for their own reasons. You'd do well to assume they have a valid reason, rather than assuming malice.

Go to the wedding. Help your sister solve her problem, if she wants to have help, but go to the wedding.
posted by Medieval Maven at 7:21 AM on September 28, 2013 [3 favorites]

I have boys who are nearly 5 and 3, and I would DREAD bringing them to a wedding, and very thankfully, all the weddings I have attended since their births have been invitations for my husband and I only. I left them home with sitters. It was great!

Your older sister certainly has a right to have hurt feelings, but if she can't suck it up and get a sitter for one night (or overnight), if her kids aren't special needs, then... I mean, it's on her. For a data point, I just left my kids with grandparents for 6 days to go to a bike conference in Las Vegas with my husband. They had a blast and we had a blast. They're at the age where they can be left without their parents for an evening, but at the age where they will not sit still at a wedding and the adults caring for them will be MISERABLE. My kids will not sit still. EVAR.

My question is, what is there in this situation that is keeping your sister from making the best of it, having a fun night off without kids, and enjoying a wedding?
posted by kpht at 7:25 AM on September 28, 2013 [4 favorites]

My wedding had about 100 guests, 20 of whom were children. I never considered not inviting kids. They were great. My goddaughter was our flower girl. My cousin's son was our ring bearer. It was about 75 degrees and sunny. The wedding was in a park. I didn't even realize but there was a small playground in the park where parents took the kids when they started getting cranky.

My sister in law's wedding was maybe 150 people. At one point at the reception, I saw my husband's friend. His daughter had been at my wedding and partied like a rock star. I asked where she was and he got kind of uncomfortable and said she wasn't invited. My husband confirmed that they didn't want kids at the wedding. I didn't get it - seriously, four years earlier, that little girl was having fun at our wedding until the very end.

For me and my family, weddings are about family and kids are family. But my sister in law's wedding wasn't my wedding. When you get married (if you're not), you can invite whoever you want. I invited the Obamas, Steve Martin, and 20 children. You can also not invite whoever you want. But if you don't go to the wedding, because of something that actually doesn't involve you, you're going to hurt your relationship with your brother. If making this particular point is that important, go ahead but proceed with caution. You can make a point in many ways. Your brother probably only gets married once.
posted by kat518 at 7:43 AM on September 28, 2013 [1 favorite]

I believe that weddings should be for everybody--that's my cultural background. It is not, however, universally culturally true in the Western world anymore, and it is not my place to turn any one particular wedding into a battleground for that issue. Seriously, this is so common anymore. It's not a great development, but you know, I also thought it was classier back when brides typically had sleeves, but does anybody ask me? No. And it is not my place to insist.

If he's not offering anything in the way of babysitting during the service/reception, if you want to be nice, help your sister pay for a sitter. But, seriously, terrible hill to die on. This does not mean he hates kids in general, hates those particular kids, hates your sister, any of that. All it means is that he and his wife-to-be have decided on a relatively common style of wedding which is primarily adults-only, with exceptions for children small enough that they can't be left elsewhere. The time to get upset, honestly, is the much rarer people who decide that even newborns are unwelcome, because they really are excluding the actual parents as well--but it sounds like your brother's made a real effort to make this as workable as possible.

Give him some credit for that.

If your older sister wants to die on this particular hill, you don't have to go with her. She's the one being unreasonable, if she refuses to attend because of something so completely ordinary.
posted by Sequence at 7:43 AM on September 28, 2013

Believe it or not, OP, there are people who will leave their kids home with a sitter even when their kids were invited. Even for family weddings.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 7:44 AM on September 28, 2013 [14 favorites]

It's not about you, and it's not about your sister, and it's not about her kids.

We don't know that. Anonymous might, but we don't.

I mean, it could be an entirely "programmatic" decision that kids will be too distracted.

Or it could be about the sister's kids, because the brother regards them as ill-behaved.

Or it could be about the sister, who the brother or new sister-in-law are fucking with just because they can.

Your brother and his fiance have every right to invite or not invite whoever they like to their wedding

This isn't a very useful way to think about it. Of course they have every right to invite whoever they like, and explicitly exclude whoever they like, and implicitly exclude whichever others they like. But they should expect their decisions about who to exclude to be understood as saying something about their priorities, and for their decisions about who to exclude to have social and familial consequences.

Or do I attend the wedding, despite my reservations about Brother’s behaviors?

When it's at the level of "have reservations about" and not "am horrified by," you go to the wedding unless maybe you happen to know that the no-kids thing really was intended to fuck with OlderSister. It would be one thing to refuse to go to a wedding where the invitation said ARYANS ONLY or NO FAT CHICKS or something else morally horrifying, but this is sooooooooo far from that.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:13 AM on September 28, 2013 [2 favorites]

A big piece of missing info seems to me to be what the huge logistical nightmare is, exactly, since for most folks here driving a couple hours from home while leaving the kids with a sitter doesn't seem to be that. Do one or both of the kids have special needs that would make a sitter impractical or impossible? Is there some other significant sticking point, like your sister lives somewhere where there is literally no one available to watch the kids for a day?

I think you boycotting would only add to the drama, and if that's your goal then boycott away.
posted by rtha at 9:20 AM on September 28, 2013 [4 favorites]

Scody has it exactly right:

"Your moral obligation, I think, is to dial down the drama (or at least not add to it) in order to help contribute to family harmony."

We don't know all the backstory or the particular circumstances that make it impossible for Older Sister to get some childcare so she can attend (is she not attending because she's hurt, or because she can't get childcare? This is not clear.).

In any case, if you think Brother is wrong to exclude kids, what benefit is there to piling another wrong on top of that? Do you WANT to break your family? Are you hoping that he'll change the rule in time for Older Sister to attend, or perhaps that next time he gets married he'll be kind enough to invite children?

His motivations and your sister's motivations are irrelevant. The only question is, do you want to take action to make things worse, or not? Boycotting will make things profoundly worse. Therefore, your moral obligation, if such exists, is to do exactly what Scody said in his answer.

(IMO, if you feel caught between pissing off Brother or Older Sister, choose the latter. Not showing solidarity with your sister would be like a stink bomb in the family. Boycotting the wedding would be like a nuke.)
posted by under_petticoat_rule at 9:49 AM on September 28, 2013 [1 favorite]

To be honest, I think your brother is wrong here for two reasons: not allowing his nieces/nephews to attend, and not communicating this decision to your sister directly. In my experience, the nieces and nephews of the bride and groom are usually invited even if other children are not allowed - as someone mentioned upthread, those are close relatives of your brother and I am surprised that he doesn't want them there.

However, I also think that both you and your sister should take the high road and just accept the decision. Even though I disagree with your brother's decision, it is his decision to make since it is his wedding. I think that both you and your sister will regret all the drama you're making out of this, and you would really regret it if you do not attend.

People get crazy when planning a wedding (one of the many reasons I chose to elope!)... but the kind thing to do is just go with the flow and try to make the best of the situation. In the end it is really just one day, compared with a lifetime relationship between you and your siblings.
posted by barnoley at 10:15 AM on September 28, 2013 [2 favorites]

Followup from the OP:

Holy shit, guys! Just went through most of your responses. As I suspected, most of y'all suggest that I go to the wedding. Upon further reflection, I guess I realize it's kind of silly to try to make a point by not attending the wedding. Using the word boycott was probably a bit too dramatic. ;) I'll be going to the wedding for sure.

There are a few things I left out for simplicity's sake that factor in here: initially, after receiving the invite, Older Sister asked if her kids were included in that no kids rule. Brother initially said they COULD come. Then, a few days later, after speaking with fiancee, he said that they would not be allowed to attend afterall. Many family members offered to watch the kids during the 15-20 minute ceremony (which, by the way, is outside in a backyard and not in a church), but that wasn't an acceptable compromise for Brother/fiancee. No kids at all. Period.

I guess that's why I'm so upset. I feel like Brother/fiancee were unreasonable to not accept that arrangement. I also suspect that it's really all coming from the fiancee, who sees this as Her Special Day That Must Not Be Tainted by Toddlers. I view weddings as a time for family, all family, like Old Man Kay. It feels like fiancee in particular is alienating ours when it should be a time for us to come together.

Overall, I just wish they'd handled it differently: told Older Sister before sending out the invites that they probably didn't want kids at the wedding, not gone back and forth on allowing them and then reneging, and accepted the offers of family members to watch the 3 and 5 year old during the ceremony. But that's not what happened, so I'll be a mature adult and go to the wedding and have a good time.

Anyway, thanks for the insight, everyone!

posted by LobsterMitten at 11:09 AM on September 28, 2013 [5 favorites]

I think your approach stated in your follow up is right, but also, if you want to raise this issue, I don't see any harm in having a direct conversation with your brother. Lay out how you feel and view things (but be clear that, also, you love him and will attend). That's how you make the point that you want to make to him.
posted by J. Wilson at 11:38 AM on September 28, 2013

Go to the wedding.

But that's some nonsense that there's no kids.

Some people say a wedding is "your special day", no, it's not. It's for your FAMILY and FRIENDS not you. Family includes children who, in ~5-15 years, will be on the same level as you in adulthood.
posted by wcfields at 11:45 AM on September 28, 2013

I view weddings as a time for family, all family, like Old Man Kay.

Here is how I would view your feelings if I was Brother:

Traditionally, weddings were family events, true family events. As in, the family would: pay for the wedding, cook the food, sew the dress, pick the flowers, etc. The event was constructed upon the backs of family time, money, and resources. In that case, it would be outrageously inappropriate to not invite the family to an event that was created by the family and intended to be celebrated as such.

However, now a days it's typically the couple who is organizing, constructing, and paying for the event, not the family.

I understand your point OP, I really do, I just think that it's worth considering that you and Sister seem to be fighting for the traditions that help you the most individually. I'm always astounded by people who are more than happy to forgo the tradition of funding the wedding, yet expect the traditions that would allow them to adjust the final product to their personal needs to be upheld.

My very personal view is that if you want a wedding to be a family event, you need to facilitate that tradition by also applying the tradition of helping pay for the wedding. Either through resources, money, or time. If you can't or won't do that, than you need to realize that this isn't truly a family event, but a couples event that family is being invited to, and act accordingly.

(Unless of course, if your family did fund a substantial part of the wedding. In that case than yes, it's a traditional family event, and screw your brother).
posted by Shouraku at 11:53 AM on September 28, 2013 [16 favorites]

Here's another thought. Your older sister put your brother in a really bad position. The invitation told your sister exactly what she needed to know - her kids were not invited. Her asking your brother to invite the kids after the hosts had already made that decision was at least as rude as his not inviting them.

Also, don't go to the wedding if you can check that attitude toward the bride. A wedding is stressful. This is the woman your brother wants for his partner. It's pretty obvious that you don't like her. Try to keep that contained for the benefit of your brother.
posted by 26.2 at 11:56 AM on September 28, 2013 [19 favorites]

I understand why you're frustrated. I do!

But, even after the follow up (which is frustrating), I think your brother's still in the right. Did he feel like he was getting his arm twisted in his conversation with his sister, said yes, than when he broke it to his fiancee, she admonished him for breaking the previously set rules and made him fix the problem? Maybe they realized how disruptive kids could be after thinking about it overnight? Because they. Can. Be. Very. Disruptive. Even in a backyard wedding, I'd be crying hot angry tears during my wedding if there were kids being noisy and disruptive, and some parents are very lax about what their kids' noise level and activity level is in public and don't feel it's a problem when others are noticeably bristling.

My family really was pushy and twisted my arms about allowing kids, and really was egging me on to have a "junior bridesmaid" in a young cousin. But, I didn't want it. I really didn't, and it was really crappy to have to say "no" repeatedly to adults making a near-hissy fit over my wedding. I did allow family member kids, but all the kids were at least 6 and mostly 10-12, and there's a huge distinction between 3-5 and 6+. HUGE.

If my brother was getting married in November, I know my extended family would want to have my 3 and 5 year old there, but if my brother thought it was too much for the evening, I'd understand and be a bit relieved and leave them home and have myself a big ol' blast. I realize not everyone is like me, but I feel like your brother might be like me. It's just different strokes for different folks, and it is THEIR wedding - hers as much as his. Think about it from her point of view for a bit.

All I can think about when picturing my 3 year old at a wedding is having to physically remove him from a room in a hot sweat in a nice dress while EVERYONE looks on, while he is hitting, kicking, and screaming at me because he is understandably hungry, bored, tired and frustrated. I'd be INCREDIBLY embarrassed.
posted by kpht at 11:56 AM on September 28, 2013 [2 favorites]

Brother is being lame for not inviting kids. (I know there are differences of opinion on this, but in my view weddings are for family; they are not Opera galas.) Sister is lame for boycotting (she could get a sitter). You would be doubly lame for boycotting. Basically, Brother made a bad choice; but don't compound it. Let it go, it's just one day.
posted by yarly at 12:34 PM on September 28, 2013

Not inviting children to weddings is often a financial decision as well.

If your sister's kids are allowed to come, then your brother will have to let everyone with kids come--there may be close guests on the bride's side who would be very upset to see kids running around when they were told they had to leave their kids at home. And if the reception is catered with a price per head, this could add up to hundreds of dollars not included in their wedding budget. They also may have a limit on the number of guests they can invite. The guest list may have already been pruned and there are people they'd rather have at the wedding than kids. Babies in attendance don't have the same effect.
posted by Polychrome at 12:43 PM on September 28, 2013 [14 favorites]

Weddings are expensive, no matter the venue. If someone has spent months of planning and tens of thousands of dollars on an event, they're entitled not to have to worry if it will all be ruined by a shrieking child. It's not bridezilla to not want that enormous time and money investment to wind up being the background for a toddler's inability to sit still and be quiet - not only at the ceremony itself, but also at the reception.
posted by winna at 1:26 PM on September 28, 2013 [7 favorites]

I guess that's why I'm so upset. I feel like Brother/fiancee were unreasonable to not accept that arrangement. I also suspect that it's really all coming from the fiancee, who sees this as Her Special Day That Must Not Be Tainted by Toddlers. I view weddings as a time for family, all family, like Old Man Kay. It feels like fiancee in particular is alienating ours when it should be a time for us to come together.

Reading this update... oh boy, I think you should really really really REALLY try to let that suspicion go if you don't want to poison your relationship with soon-to-be-sister in law and her/brother's possible children. And it's ridiculous of you to put all the blame on her - even if it IS her that wanted no kids initially, your brother is backing her up. Your brother is just as complicit in enforcing the decision as she is, and putting all the blame on her is totally on YOU deciding to make her the "outsider" and the villain.



Try to see it from the fiancee's perspective - she is being totally reasonable letting your other sister's baby come, and your brother's baby (who it sounds like is not her baby?) and instead of seeing her reasonableness, you are focusing on one thing you think is selfish. Brother and his fiancee are throwing a big, expensive party for you and your family/friends and you're complaining about the guest list.
posted by nakedmolerats at 2:31 PM on September 28, 2013 [12 favorites]

I don't think your brother in law is being unreasonable at all. Amongst our family and friends, most ceremonies have included children - they're generally quick affairs, where the parents can take the child out of the church if they start misbehaving. For my wedding, my 17 nieces and nephews and all my friend's kids were invited. I loved them, I wanted them to share in our day. We had photos in the park afterwards and a few hours of them running around and mingling.

As it headed into evening, it was time for the reception. The children weren't invited to that, it would go to the wee hours, there was alcohol and the kids would get bored and tired. Most of them were small and the day thus far had already exhausted them. Pretty much every parent welcomed it - they wanted a child free night out too! Kids were dropped off home to a sitter, parents returned to the ceremony, everyone was happy.

Everybody understood and the children were included in the day up to the point where it wasn't appropriate for their age, oh and the cost of including at least another 30 people at the reception (there would have been a lot of kids) would have been prohibitive for us.

It's your brother's wedding, he's entitled to have his day as he sees fit. Guests who disagree are entitled not to attend.
posted by Jubey at 2:50 PM on September 28, 2013

I went to a wedding where the bride and groom asked that kids not be allowed. I was with a group of family friends of the couple's parents who spent the entire evening badmouthing the bride and laughing when things went wrong because they were mad their kids weren't invited. It was really depressing and upsetting.

If you do go to your brother's wedding, please do it because you want to share in his joy that he has someone he loves.
posted by katinka-katinka at 3:14 PM on September 28, 2013 [2 favorites]

I used to be a big believer in the "family celebration" thing. I invited kids to my wedding and hired babysitters to help. And then my 5 year old nephew screamed throughout my ceremony -- I guess his cluefree mother didn't want to take him out of the damn room lest she miss something. It was distracting and upsetting, I'm still angry about it when I think of it, and I wish I had been stricter about kids policies to start with.

Which is to say: the people judging your brother in this thread are wrong. Your sister needs to find a babysitter and correct her attitude.

And you need to reconsider your attitude about the bride, or find yourself not in your brother's life much in years to come. This is her family now.
posted by fingersandtoes at 3:33 PM on September 28, 2013 [15 favorites]

I'd look at the flip flop not as "fiancee controlled my brother and excluded my sister" but as a sign of love-driven wishful thinking on his part. He WISHES your sister's kids could be included, he truly does. But upon further reflection, it really just doesn't make sense. Even if fiancee is the one who initially realized why it didn't make sense, he agrees with the logic, which may well be quite sound. (Maybe their friends have so many toddlers that it'd be like a playground, and they can't allow some but not others. Maybe there are many glass vases at the reception. Maybe...)
posted by salvia at 4:22 PM on September 28, 2013 [3 favorites]

Here's another thing to consider:

Then, a few days later, after speaking with fiancee, he said that they would not be allowed to attend afterall.

He's your family, but he's also building a new family, as well. How many AskMes come in, where one half of a couple comes in to say something like, "My inlaws are always in our business about X, how do we handle it?". And when you read the history, you find that the other member of the couple has never really built solid boundaries with the family, so the family/inlaws is always in the thick of it with the couple?

She's going to be his wife. To you, she's an interloper, a Johnny-Come-Lately to the scene, and that's perfectly valid. But once they're married, she - and the family he's building with her - is his first priority. And they're starting to build those boundaries together now, and it's hard for you and your family. I'm not saying that to be mean. It is hard - it's a change in dynamics and it's a change in roles, and it's an adjustment.

And yeah, they could have handled it better. But planning a wedding is a bitch. Everyone has an opinion on what you're doing, what you're not doing, what you could have done better, wondering did you think about this or that or the other thing? Everyone. Heck, you have how many internet strangers? who just gave an opinion on how your brother is handling his wedding, and they don't even know him or the whole situation.

Look, I had the most kid-friendly wedding in the world. The actual wedding was a 5 minute courthouse ceremony for immediate family only, and the reception was a kegger in my inlaw's backyard. There were 8 acres the kids could play on, and we had volleyball and kickball and a bonfire and smores and kid friendly food. And yet my sister's husband still gave me a hard time, the entire walk from the parking lot to the court room, because I "deserved" a big froo-froo fluffy white wedding ceremony in a church. All this, despite my repeated assurances that the ceremony that was going to happen was the ceremony I wanted. He got to the point that my sister told him to knock it off or she'd make him sit in the car if he couldn't be civil. So no matter what you do, someone's going to think you did it wrong.
posted by RogueTech at 8:51 PM on September 28, 2013 [11 favorites]

Your older sister is not the star of the wedding. She does not get to be consulted on matters concerning the wedding, therefore it is ludicrous to suggest that your brother owed her a heads up before issuing invitations. She really needs to get over herself and your brother did the right thing by sticking by his wife when his wife said no a second time. All three of you need to show some maturity right now -- and your older sister especially needs to eat some humble pie and make all of this up to your brother AND his fiancée.
posted by These Birds of a Feather at 10:15 PM on September 28, 2013 [1 favorite]

What are the logistical problems preventing your sister from attending the wedding? Perhaps there is a third option: remedying those problems. Money for a sitter -- a ride into town -- something.

What are your brother's stated reasons for making this decision? You can't really judge the quality of his actions based on speculation as to his motives, which everyone here (including, as far as I can tell, you) is doing.
posted by J. Wilson at 5:15 AM on September 29, 2013

Nthing what someone said upstream. Weddings are not only about the bride and groom. It's about sharing it with family and friends.

I'm with your sister BTW. I wouldn't feel comfortable finding a babysitter away from home.

If you want to boycott, do it and don't feel badly! They made their choice, don't feel badly about making yours.
posted by jraz at 5:59 AM on October 2, 2013

I went to a wedding once that had about 30 kids and 60 adults, it was a mess. I wish that the couple had said 'no kids' that time...
posted by Cycloptichorn at 5:04 PM on October 4, 2013