‘My ex-husband and I have been invited to a wedding - and I'm worried'
Question
My ex-husband and I
divorced
when our two
children
were quite young. The girls have suffered as a result of his missing out on lots in their lives and there is now an opportunity for some reparation.
My god
daughter is getting married and she is connected to both of our families and has invited all of us to her wedding. She has included my ex and his mother and siblings, plus my children and the rest of my family of origin. I was very angry with my ex for a long time, particularly over the disappointment the children suffered at his not making enough effort with them but the girls are particularly excited at his being at this event and I feel I need to make an effort for them.
I have decided to let bygones be bygones and open up to him and his family for the event, even though they have been disdainful and dismissive of me since the divorce. There is a possibility that my ex is more open to co-
parenting
and we've had a few tentative communications. The problem is my family – they are also hurt and angry with my ex and his family for the way he treated me and they say they will not speak to any of them at the wedding. They think I am soft and stupid for giving in to him.
I really just want to focus on my girls and give them a great day but I feel very stuck in the middle and worry that no matter what I do, something will fall apart: either my own family, who are my support system, will be hurt or my kids will lose out on feeling good about having their dad and mum in the same room.
READ MORE
Answer
Your attitude is excellent in that you are planning on meeting the biggest need in this situation – that of your daughters having a good relationship with both parents.
However, it sounds as though you have arrived at this magnanimous place after what must have been a tough time during the separation. Your ex-husband has missed so much of your children's lives and it was a very good thing that your family supported you. However, it often happens that family and friends remain more angry than the partner, and yours are still outraged at the way you have been treated.
However, it is really your decision regarding the event and they should follow your lead and they are more likely to do this if you sound confident and assertive in your belief that being civil to your husband and his family is good for your children. Confidence stems from having faith in your decision and trusting that it is the right thing to do. Speaking openly and often about your stance will not only enhance your own position but will also let your family hear your seriousness and might offer them an opportunity to work out their own difficulties and reservations.
[
Co-parenting: 'We always put our children's needs before our own, so we could see the bigger picture'
Opens in new window
]
Remember that it is not your job to sort out or fix their anger, but it is important that they know you no longer need them as champions of your victimisation. You no longer feel this way and are now a person who is strong and confident and is following a decision that is the best for your children. A suggestion might be to propose to your ex that he send an email or text to your family saying that he is grateful for this opportunity for reconnect, but this depends on your willingness to have this conversation. This message might soften your family's position, but it might also demonstrate an acknowledgment on his part of the schism that took place. If you are genuinely suggesting that he be invited into co-parenting, then it will be important for the two of you to have some challenging conversations and this could be the starting point for future discussions.
[
'I left my husband for another man and our two children are bearing the brunt of his refusal to speak to me'
Opens in new window
]
Your daughters will benefit from having parents who can speak robustly together and so they will not have to protect you from each other, this will be of huge benefit in their lives. Trust that your position is one of largesse, and one of confidence and that you are now in the leadership position, both with your own family and with your ex-husband. This can only improve life for all concerned and well done to you.
To send your question to Trish Murphy, fill in the form below, click
here
or email
tellmeaboutit@irishtimes.com
.form-group {width:100% !important;}
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
9 hours ago
- Irish Times
How the culture war is remaking advertising
During this year's Super Bowl, American viewers were given a blast from the past when food chain Carl's Jr once again rolled out an ad featuring scantily clad women, having ditched its long-time 'burgers and bikinis' approach in 2017. Bud Light, which attracted boycotts after working with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney in 2023, put out a campaign featuring guys drinking beer and barbecuing big steaks for a lawn party in a stereotypical US suburban cul-de-sac. For many marketers, these sort of ads were the latest signs that big US and international brands, after years of talk about purpose and inclusion in their corporate messaging, are now playing to the Maga crowd. Some have gone even farther; restaurant chain Steak 'n Shake, for example, sponsored a recent bitcoin conference, and tweeted posts appealing to Tesla Cybertruck drivers. Its pinned post on X features US health secretary Robert F Kennedy jnr . READ MORE Yet at the same time, senior advertising bosses say campaigns featuring themes of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) are now being blocked by some brand owners, who are nervous of a backlash from anti-woke campaigners and Republican politicians. 'We've had a lot of ideas that were pro-LGBTQ, or pro for the black community, pulled back on because of what's happening with the Trump administration,' says one senior advertising boss who, like many of the executives that the Financial Times spoke to, did not want to be named for fear of sparking a further negative response. The election of Donald Trump has brought added fears of legal action against DEI initiatives in the US and scrutiny by regulators and Christian faith shareholders over perceived bias in advertising. Top marketers in the US say the increased nervousness about being attacked for being 'woke' by conservatives on platforms such as Elon Musk 's X is changing how they approach spending often constrained budgets to reach consumers. Consumer behaviour is becoming more polarised. A new report from FCB, the advertising agency, and Angus Reid, the Canadian pollster, found that political leaning had a clear impact on consumer choices. FCB's Global chief executive Tyler Turnbull says that brands are now political, and it was 'really no longer viable for marketers to ignore the political perspective of their target audiences'. It is not only an American phenomenon. Flora Joll, strategy director at creative agency JOAN London, says she has seen 'campaigns get diluted across the board' in part owing to 'increasing nervousness about attracting the wrong kind of public attention'. She adds: 'The woke wars in the UK are far behind where the US have been for a while, but it is starting to bite here and a [possible] recession would only have an exacerbating effect.' It adds up to an unusually complicated time for marketers as they congregated in the south of France for the annual Cannes Lions advertising festival this week. In a poll of global chief marketing officers by the World Federation of Advertisers published this week, more than four-fifths of respondents said the operating environment was now riskier for brands. A similar number said they were taking more time to 'agree what they stand for and how they articulate positions and values externally in their marketing communications'. PR agency executives say their big workload now is advising brands on how to react to Trump's unpredictable salvos on anything from DEI to tariffs. 'Most of the time they just want to say nothing,' says a senior PR executive. The nervousness means advertising is shying away from the role it has played for decades in expanding mainstream culture to include historically less-represented people, including those marginalised by their race, sexuality or disabilities. Often this was ahead of its time; in 1994, the year a gay couple appeared in a US TV commercial for the first time, more than a dozen US states still had laws that prohibited gay men from having consensual sex. The risk for an industry that still celebrates diversity in its own ranks is that the sort of free thinking that can underpin creativity will be unduly muted at a time when the traditional industry roles are under assault from the emergence of AI. 'There's been a shift towards the more reassuring, more run of the mill. That's what's going to happen until things settle. It's very, very uncertain,' says one agency boss. 'You're seeing a lot less purpose-led ideas around DEI – not because they don't exist but because clients are getting nervous. You don't want to be targeted.' To a certain extent, advertising has become the battleground for broader culture war conflicts in the corporate world. Shareholder activists, for example, are now using their clout to influence companies to reverse their positions on matters of diversity and inclusion, following the lead of the White House. The Alliance Defending Freedom – an organisation set up to protect Christian values – has backed shareholders who have filed more than 60 resolutions for the 2025 proxy season. It claims to have helped push a number of the world's largest advertisers into enshrining 'viewpoint neutrality' when it comes to their creative work. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys and its shareholder partners most recently claimed victory after IBM moved to 'viewpoint neutrality' in its advertising policies last month, adding to a list that they say includes PepsiCo and Johnson & Johnson . These companies did not respond to requests for comment. In a statement to the FT, the Alliance Defending Freedom said that IBM was the latest company to take steps to 'prevent future viewpoint-based discrimination', adding: 'No corporation should be involved in or allow for censorship at any level. We hope every company ... recommits to doing its part to protect freedom of speech and thought in our nation and throughout the world.' An antitrust lawsuit filed last year by X against Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a brand safety initiative backed by advertisers and ad agencies, as well as some companies, accused them of co-ordinating an 'illegal boycott' of the site. The initiative, which was part of the World Federation of Advertisers, has since shut down. The coalition of advertisers, including Nestlé and Shell , last month asked a federal judge in Texas to dismiss the lawsuit, saying that their decisions to suspend advertising on X were made independently and reflected concerns over the platform's content moderation practices. 'There is a genuine fear of reprisal, based on not just opinion, but actually some real fear of legal ramifications at some point down the line which people have to take seriously,' says a UK marketing head. 'Because they have a duty of care to ensure that they're not creating an illegal jeopardy by doing some of these things.' Musk – although now out of the White House – is still seen to have considerable sway over the direction taken by regulators in the US. The US Congress has held hearings looking at potential collusion among advertising firms, while the Federal Trade Commission is also looking at whether advertising and advocacy groups have colluded in working with brands to boycott platforms such as X. Turnbull says that brands now needed to consider the choice of marketing platform as a political act. 'Where you're advertising is as much of a statement now about what your brand is and what you stand for as it's ever been before. What message are you sending? Should you be on Joe Rogan or Michelle Obama's podcast?' The trend is also affecting M&A in the industry. In December, Jim Jordan, a Republican who chairs the House judiciary committee, wrote to Omnicom boss John Wren to say that they were looking at the takeover of rival Interpublic in relation to their work with Global Alliance for Responsible Media, adding that the proposed merger raises potential anticompetitive concerns. Even if there is yet to be any tangible impact from these threats, the combination of lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny has had a chilling effect on brands and DEI, ad bosses say. Richard Exon, co-founder of independent creative advertising agency Joint, says that commitment to DEI 'has recently become a politicised position' in the US. Larger businesses were facing the challenge of achieving broad appeal in a highly polarised media landscape, he adds. 'It's not surprising if these larger businesses proceed more cautiously on social justice issues.' Some marketers say they are being more closely monitored by their boards about delivery, with the focus now on effectiveness of campaigns that can yield tangible sales. Brands are often working with tightened budgets, says one UK advertising boss, meaning that 'anything unrelated to pure growth, including purpose, could be seen as a distraction and therefore harder to gain traction within a business'. But the move in the cultural landscape has also shifted marketing budgets, with organisers of Pride marches and other LGBT+ events saying that there has been a retreat from corporate sponsors this year in the US and the UK. In New York, a number of sponsors such as Mastercard did not renew their top-tier corporate sponsorships of Pride. Mastercard said that, this year, it was 'proudly participating in the NYC Pride March and related events with a strong employee-led presence and a community engagement programme'. [ A quarter of major US corporate backers pull out of Dublin Pride over Trump fears Opens in new window ] Polly Shute, founder of Out & Wild, the UK's largest LGBT+ festival and former board member of Pride in London, says that corporate sponsors have been less keen to back events. Plymouth and Liverpool have both pulled their Pride march events – the latter blaming 'significant financial and organisational challenges' at a time of rising costs. Shute says that, in 2017, Pride 'was turning brands away as they did not meet criteria' but 'it's very different now'. She notes that some brands and companies had stopped changing their logos to Pride colours on social media such as LinkedIn. In the UK, these include firms that have extensive operations in the US such as WPP, Linklaters and Freshfields. Linklaters said its 'commitment remains unchanged. We are proud to be celebrating Pride at Linklaters ... with events and activities taking place across our global offices'. Freshfields has used other Pride branding this year, including a Pride banner across its LinkedIn page. Shute says that demand for influencers to be used in external marketing, and for speakers for internal corporate events, has also been more muted this year. 'It used to be that the social media was really positive but now the reaction has scared off sponsorship as they don't want to be associated with the negativity.' However, dog treats company BarkBox showed there are dangers in shifting positions. Matt Meeker, the group's chief executive, was forced to apologise after a leaked Slack message suggested the company would pause paid advertising for its Pride kit, with the 'current climate' making such promotions 'feel like a political statement'. Target, the US retailer, has also been boycotted by some customers since February owing to its decision to scale back DEI initiatives. 'Target is another example recently where a changed policy has resulted in people voting with their wallets and from a purchase perspective,' says FCB's Turnbull. The People's Union USA, a grassroots consumer-led group, has organised 'economic blackouts' against other companies such as Amazon, Walmart and General Mills. [ Meta introduces advertising to WhatsApp in push for new revenues Opens in new window ] 'This blackout isn't symbolic. It's strategic. We are the economy. We are the machine they profit off of. And it's time to show them what happens when the machine stops,' it says. These shifting cultural sands – and the now ever present risk of alienating customers on any side of a political or societal divide – means that it is in brands' interest to play it safe, according to marketers. 'People are just leaning back, particularly our big clients,' says one ad boss. 'There's just less of a focus on purposeful, super-targeted work right now.' Some point to a focus on humour or universal themes as risk-free ways to get to the biggest audiences. The shift is particularly sensitive at the Cannes Lions festival, which for several years was seen by some as having moved potentially too far towards social issues in the sorts of advertising work it celebrated and rewarded. In Cannes, much of the talk was about how AI would replace a lot of the work carried out by creative teams, resulting in unoriginal and bland advertising campaigns, exacerbating the shift to safety-first approaches. But some are hopeful that the industry can withstand external pressures, finding new and clever ways to reach audiences irrespective of political allegiances. And they point out that Cannes Lions still has an award for work that addresses inequality and prejudice by representing and empowering marginalised communities. 'Purpose always has a place,' says Karen Martin, boss of BBH and president of the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising. 'Cannes may have become too purposeful for a while, but getting different creative voices in the room, and making sure you are addressing all audiences, will always be the centre of what we do.' – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Irish Times
a day ago
- Irish Times
Trump's Maga base divided on use of military might against Iran
'Anyone slobbering for the US to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/Maga ... We are sick and tired of foreign wars.' Those are the words of congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene – normally regarded as one of Donald Trum p's most loyal followers. They highlight the deep split that has emerged inside the Maga movement as the US president warms to the idea of using America's military might against Iran . For many of Trump's most ardent supporters that would be a deep betrayal. One of his most consistent campaign themes was his condemnation of 'forever wars'. In one typical outburst in 2019, he proclaimed: 'Going into the Middle East is the worst decision ever made.' Many of the politicians and pundits who are most strongly associated with the Maga movement have now come out explicitly against deeper US involvement in the war on Iran. The critics include Tucker Carlson , Steve Bannon and former congressman Matt Gaetz . Carlson has used his newsletter to urge: 'Drop Israel. Let them fight their own wars', adding: 'What happens next will define Donald Trump's presidency.' READ MORE There are also signs that the anti-war right is linking up with the anti-war left. When Thomas Massie, a conservative Republican congressman, filed a House resolution seeking to block US involvement in the war this week, he swiftly got a host of co-sponsors from the Democratic left, including congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Trump himself has already jabbed back at his critics from within the Maga movement, calling Carlson 'kooky' on social media. Meanwhile, supporters of America's traditional role as world policeman (sometimes referred to as neoconservatives) within the Republican party have rallied to back Trump's increasingly bellicose line on Iran. The supporters include senators Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell. The split within Trump's base extends to the right-wing media scene. Greene has condemned Fox News and the New York Post for cheerleading for the war. Carlson, meanwhile, has used his own media platform to go after the neoconservatives – conducting a notably aggressive interview with Ted Cruz, in which he accused the Texas Republican senator of cheerleading for a war against a country that he knew nothing about. Vice-president JD Vance is known to have been sceptical about the case for war with Iran for many months. Buckley Carlson, Tucker's son, is his deputy press secretary. But Vance is now trying to act as peacemaker between the clashing factions within the Maga movement. In a post on X, he pleaded that Trump 'has earned some trust on this issue'. He also tried to reassure uneasy Maga supporters that the president is 'only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people's goals'. An Economist/YouGov poll taken a few days ago suggested that 53 per cent of Trump supporters opposed the US joining the war, with just 19 per cent supporting involvement. That could change, if and when American planes start flying sorties over Iran. The early days of a war often create a 'rally round the flag' effect. But if the war goes wrong, there will be bitter recriminations. Iran could be the issue that breaks the Maga movement. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Irish Times
a day ago
- Irish Times
Israel-Iran: Trump caution on US involvement linked to doubts about ‘bunker buster' bomb
Donald Trump has suggested to defence officials it would make sense for the US to launch strikes against Iran only if the so-called 'bunker buster' bomb was guaranteed to destroy the critical uranium enrichment facility at Fordow, according to people familiar with the deliberations. Mr Trump was told that dropping the GBU-57s, a 13.6-tonne bomb would effectively eliminate Fordow, but he does not appear to be fully convinced, the people said, and has held off authorising strikes as he also awaits the possibility that the threat of US involvement would lead Iran to talks. The effectiveness of GBU-57s has been a topic of deep contention at the Pentagon since the start of Mr Trump's term, according to two defence officials who were briefed that perhaps only a tactical nuclear weapon could be capable of destroying Fordow because of how deeply it is buried. Mr Trump is not considering using a tactical nuclear weapon on Fordow and the possibility was not briefed by defence secretary Pete Hegseth and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Gen Dan Caine in meetings in the White House situation room, two people familiar with the matter said. READ MORE But the defence officials who received the briefing were told that using conventional bombs, even as part of a wider strike package of several GBU-57s, would not penetrate deep enough underground and that it would only do enough damage to collapse tunnels and bury it under rubble. Fordo nuclear site in Iran Those in the briefing heard that completely destroying Fordow, which Israeli intelligence estimates to go down as far as 90m, would require the US to soften the ground with conventional bombs and then ultimately drop a tactical nuclear bomb from a B2 bomber to wipe out the entire facility, a scenario Mr Trump is not considering. The assessments were made by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), a component of the defence department that tested the GBU-57, as it reviewed the limitations of US military ordinance against a number of underground facilities. The situation underscores the complex nature of such a strike and what success would entail: dropping GBU-57s would likely set back Iran's ability to obtain weapons-grade uranium for up to a few years, but not end the programme completely. Spokespeople for the White House and the Pentagon did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Taking Fordow offline – either diplomatically or militarily – is seen as central to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found the site had enriched uranium to 83.7 per cent – close to the 90 per cent needed for nuclear weapons. Any effort to destroy Fordow would require US involvement because Israel does not possess the ordnance to strike a facility that deep or the planes to carry them. The difficulty with using the GBU-57 to target Fordow, according to the two officials familiar with the DTRA briefing, lies in part with the characteristics of the facility which is buried inside a mountain – and the fact that the bomb has never been used in a comparable situation before. 'It would not be a one and done,' a former DTRA deputy director, retired Maj Gen Randy Manner, said of the GBU-57's limitations, adding that Fordow could be quickly rebuilt. 'It might set the programme back six months to a year. It sounds good for TV but it's not real.' The bomb is commonly known as a 'bunker buster' because it was designed to destroy underground bunkers, but it can be carried only by a B2 bomber that has air superiority and requires a solid GPS signal to lock in on its target. While Israel has said it has established air superiority over Iran, a successful strike would still require any GPS jammers and other defences to be taken out in advance, and for the GBU-57 to penetrate deep enough into the ground to neutralise the facility. Iran built the nuclear enrichment facility at Fordow underground to protect it from the threat of aerial attacks. In 1981, Israel bombed a nuclear facility near Baghdad that was located above ground in order to stop Iraq developing nuclear weapons. In recent years, Israel has devised a variety of plans to destroy Fordow without the help of the United States. In one instance, Israel proposed loading helicopters with commandos who could fight their way into the facility and blow it up – an option that Mr Trump has dismissed, according to people familiar with the matter. – Guardian
