DEAR CAROLYN: My daughter recently remarried, creating a new family with a wonderful man, her young son and his two children.
My husband and I have a close relationship with her son. She and he lived with us for several years. I have tried to get to know my grandson's two stepsiblings but that is made more difficult by the custody schedules, which limit time the whole family is together.
My husband is always nice to the stepkids but has said he is unwilling to invest a lot of emotional capital in these two children, who he feels no real connection to. I get it. I find I have to try harder. At the same time, I recoil at his attitude. The connection is our daughter and her family.
My husband says if our daughter gets divorced again, I will never see these kids again. But that attitude assumes the worst-case scenario, and I prefer to assume -- and act on -- a best-case-scenario future for our daughter, unless and until facts dictate otherwise.
I believe I am not making a mistake but wonder if I should just chill about my husband's attitude because with time and growing familiarity, everything will work out.
-- Navigating an Unfamiliar World
DEAR READER: Not only does your husband's attitude assume the worst-case scenario, but it also assumes his feelings are paramount.
That is rarely if ever true where kids are involved.
If indeed he forms a bond with his step-grandchildren only for a divorce to take them away, then, yes, he will feel that loss. But an adult such as he is much better equipped to weather that maybe-someday heartbreak than these children are to weather the certain heartbreak of unequal treatment by family elders.
These kids will sense their new grandfather sees them as "less-than" and doesn't care to know them, and feel the effects of that now. On top of whatever other pain they went through during the upheaval of their family through no choice of their own.
So I recoil at his attitude, too, and hope you will point out the deep injustice in his logic. They're kids. They don't need excuses, they need leadership and they need love.
Once you've established some moral authority here, then it might help to "just chill" -- because knowing you need to get closer is one thing. Actually doing it takes authenticity and time, two things you simply can't force. A viewing with your husband of the Fonda/Hepburn film On Golden Pond might be just what you need to relax.
DEAR CAROLYN: My husband's niece is getting married! Wedding is a few hours away so an overnight stay will be necessary. So exciting until we found out that there was a 21-and-older age minimum. Our oldest, 23, and his girlfriend were invited. Our 18- and 20-year-old kids were not.
Bride says it's about the money. I think we need to wish them well and none of us attend. What are your thoughts?
-- P.
DEAR READER: I think not going is a valid way to respond, sure.
It's also valid to try stepping back far enough from your own hard feelings to see the bigger picture.
Over the years I've seen just about every possible gimmick to prune guest lists into something that's inexpensive and inoffensive, and generally they save a little and outrage a lot. No kids, check; eloping, check; no plus-ones, check; engaged and married plus-ones included but no co-habiting or just dating plus-ones, check; yes to immediate family but no to the next ring out, check; venues so far away that almost no one can come, check; courthouse with select witnesses, check; co-opting another gathering to have a surprise pop-up wedding, check; venues with capacity limited by fire code, check; no out-of-town guests, check.
Unscientifically, I'd say couples with their weddings a decade or three in the past come to regret such gimmicks as often as they'd still defend them -- for good reason. They're commonly long out of touch with people they contorted these rules to include, or close (and still apologizing!) to some who at the time didn't make the cut. But in the moment, the pressures can feel immense.
So, in lieu of opting out, you could justifiably take a compassionate view of these pressures, forgive the couple their tone-deafness, and hope they didn't skimp on the cake.
DEAR CAROLYN: What does it mean when a man won't admit his feelings for a woman to others?
-- M.
DEAR READER: What does it say about the man, you mean? I don't know. It could be that he's a man of few words or a man of many secrets. Or a bunch of things in between.
What it means for the woman is that if she places a high value on a man's willingness to express his feelings for her openly, then he's not the man for her.
Chat online with Carolyn at 11 a.m. each Friday at washingtonpost.com. Write to Tell Me About It in care of The Washington Post, Style Plus, 1150 15th St. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20071; or email
tellme@washpost.com
Style on 07/15/2018