If at all possible, the LW and BF should pay for a room (or two) at the hotel where the in-laws are staying and tell the sibs "Sorry, we couldn't possibly be good hosts right now so here's the hotel". Repeat as necessary. Give no specific details about why right now is not a good time; specifics allow people to argue with you. I promise that this will be money well spent.

Secondly, find something for them to do that you are OK with. Maybe have them put together a scrapbook or decorate the front yard; something that you are OK with letting them do as they want without oversight (maybe the front yard isn't such a good idea, come to think of it). Tell them how thrilled you are that they can do it because otherwise it wouldn't be done. Keep them busy with something that you don't feel you need to control (and I don't mean control in a derogatory way, you have the right to arrange this ceremony as you see fit).

When the sibs want to make suggestions that you don't want to take, instead of saying "Hell NO!" or whatever variant you're considering, smile and say "That's something to think about" or "I'll give that some consideration". You are not obligating yourself to do anything but the person making suggestions feels that he or she has been taken seriously.

You're going to be stuck with these people for a long time, so you may as well start getting creative about dealing with them. And save a bottle of champagne to drink after they leave.

The Cary Tennis advice column really turns out to be a Rorschack test sometimes. I'm a little surprised by the anger in some of the responses. The LW wasn't objecting to the parents but the siblings. It makes sense for the disabled parent to stay in a hotel; most hotels have handicapped rooms that would be much easier for the BF's mom to navigate than a non-handicapped house. As for siblings, we don't know how many (I personally would rather pay for a room than sleep under a kitchen table) or why they're considered dysfunctional. I have "dysfunctional" relatives who are heavy drinkers and troublemakers, and I damn sure don't want them spending significant time at my house. The LW also has a baby that is apparently younger than a year and she probably works. She might not have the energy to cope with a houseful of relatives, never mind dysfunctional ones.

Bottom line: maybe she's selfish and petulant, maybe she sees a life of being bullied ahead of her unless she takes action, maybe she just doesn't have it in her to manage this right now. We don't know and to castigate her under the circumstances seems a little cruel.

I'm going to take issue with a passing comment posted by someone about how childless people pay taxes to send other people's children to school: Tax-supported schools don't exist to do parents a favor. They exist to educate the populace. An educated citizenry and workforce is better than one that is not educated. Paying taxes for schools (which I did for years and years before having children) is a good investment. It beats the hell out of paying for prisons.

Remember that my and other's children will be running your nursing home, making laws that affect you, managing businesses that manufacture or distribute products that you need, etc. Don't you want those children to be educated?

Wow, some mad people here. Rather than rebut individual points, I will try to explain myself better. A lot of people (not necessarily here) seem to view children as a luxury item, and object to any perceived subsidizing of children as though they were asked to subsidize other people's SUV's or summer homes. My point is that my vehicles (I sadly have no summer home) confer no benefits to other people but my children will. Therefore, some judicious support for good schools, child care, etc is an investment that will ultimately pay off. Note that I used "judicious". I don't expect to have extra days off. I do however want flexibility when possible. That is actually inherent in my job...I have the option of leaving work early and managing kids and doing my work later in the evening. It would be great if other parents or caretakers could do this when it is feasible. I harbor no illusions that all workplaces should let everyone flee at will.

Should childless people get to comment on such things? Sure, because it affects them. However it gets testy when it seems that childless or child-free people are assuming that they know exactly what a parent's needs are. Parents find advice about how to handle children from those without children very annoying. So "I don't want to work extra so you can pump" reflects your rights, but "you don't need to pump" is going to evoke an "Oh yes I do" response.

Back to breastfeeding: Surely some flexiblity and creativity could solve some of these problems. I agree that an electric breastpump and all but the squeaky-cleanest bathroom don't mix. But I did use an Avent handheld breast pump for a while that worked very well and was much more portable than an electric one. Having Starbucks, etc have a nursing room is probably not going to be a great use of space. But those places do have offices...maybe a corner of an office could be set up for use, if only behind a screen. Paying someone for 20 minutes of pumping rankles people. But Medela makes a gizmo that can allow you to pump while your hands are free (and what a Rube Goldberg contraption it is) so you could eat lunch however you usually do. It's painful to see that pumping breastmilk has become a flashpoint for argument, when I think that approaching it with a spirit of compromise and a can-do attitude would work in most cases.