Message ID: bmc4o2$kiq68$1@ID-202214.news.uni-berlin.de
My youngest sister-in-law (early 30s) is expecting her third child, by a third man, in 12 years. This will be her second of the three children born pre-marriage. My quandary lies in the gift/shower-giving etiquette.
In the past I have been told by my in-laws that I must co-host both the pre-marriage baby shower and the bridal shower, primarily because no one, family or friend, will do so. Their logic is that this is the first child/wedding for the father/groom.
I do intend to give the appropriate gifts, but how can I tactfully, yet clearly, say that I feel I have more than fulfilled my sister-in-law duties to date regarding the showers? My relationship with my in-laws is poor at best anyway, and I don't want to make things worse. Enough is enough, don't you think?
-- Frustrated
Dear Frustrated:
Enough is always enough, in my book.
First, a suggestion: I know you're on the moral high ground, and I sure hope you're enjoying the view, but your in-laws are not going to value your judgments about their daughter, I assure you. Even if they agree with you, they're not going to want to hear it.
Sometimes the best way to get out of something sticky is to do it simply. Don't make excuses; don't cite chapter and verse. Don't share with them my opinion that a bridal shower for a third marriage is over the top (though babies should always be "showered," if possible). Just say, "I'm so sorry, I just can't host these events. I'd love to attend, but I can't host." This scheme only works if you're cheerful but firm.
Amy Vanderbilt suggests that in cases such as this, in which the bride has been married before but the groom has not, the groom's parents might want to host a dinner party for the couple in lieu of a bridal shower. If this baby is to be "showered," your sister-in-law's family is going to have to step up to the plate this time around.
Either way, please do make sure you welcome "Baby" to the world. None of this is the baby's fault.
Amy Dickinson
published Oct 12, 2003
In my humble opinion, your family-in-law is full of male bovine feces. The idea behind these two events is for first time mothers and brides to get basic necessities for child care and household. However, since this is marriage #2 and child #3, your SIL presumably has both and it is in *very* bad form to use these events to "upgrade". Note that I said "brides and mothers" not "grooms and fathers" - Bridal showers and baby showers are primarily women's events, not men's. Yes, I know there is the obsequious "Jack and Jill" shower, but these are far, far in the minority, and nothing was stated in the letter about that type of event. Nothing was said about the groom attending either event.
In short: This is an entitlement gift grab, and you are quite correct in not wanting to play any part in it. As to my counterpart's premise that babies should always be "showered", in light of what I said above about this child being #3, I really have to ask the burning question of "Why?" Are the happy couple in dire financial straits? If so, then why are they having that baby if they are not capable of supplying it with the basic necessities? Perhaps the gift of a box of condoms might be more appropriate.
So, what should you do? The fact that - as stated above - no one, either family or friend, wishes the dubious "honour" of hosting these events speaks volumes. You are obviously not alone in your feelings about this farce. Your in-laws are entitlement minded cretins and there is no reason to make yourself look like one of them. A simple "I'm sorry, I cannot host these events" should be enough: no explanation required, repeat as necessary and don't back down. If they choose to get angry, that is their problem, not yours.
Childfree Abby
The ChildFree Abby Archives - http://www.dismal-light.net/childfreeabby/