Her parents want to remove her from their will because she "had no children": she decides to take revenge
Not all women are born with or develop maternal instincts, and many make a very specific choice when they decide to settle down but still not have children. An individual choice that often many old-fashioned parents do not take so well, so much so that the woman at the center of this strange family story quarrelled with her mother and father because they wanted to cut her from their will, simply because she "didn't have had children ".
The woman told on Reddit that she was the only one of three siblings who hadn't had any children, a choice her parents apparently didn't like at all. During a Thanksgiving dinner hosted at the woman's home, she had a very heated argument with her parents and also her siblings, who were all gathered there. The father asked the woman: "If you don't want to have children, why should we include you in the will? You don't contribute to the family."
The woman could not believe what she was hearing, and all the other family members seemed to agree with the old head of the family; if she didn't have children, she would not have benefited in the future from the inheritance left by her parents. Finally the woman went on a rampage, and she decided to take revenge on her parents ...
Since the woman had been hosting all her relatives in her big house for the Christmas holidays for about 6 years, she decided to cancel all these traditions and close the doors of her home to the whole family, including siblings and parents. After throwing her guests belongings on the ground that Thanksgiving night and telling them to leave the house immediately, the woman locked herself in a room with her husband and refused to talk to anyone.
After the disappointment of her father's words, the anonymous woman decided to take revenge by canceling the Christmas celebrations and forcing all her family to "find another place, if they wanted to spend the holidays together". If, as her old father had stated, she was not "contributing" to the welfare of the family without giving birth to a child, and then she would not contribute at all.
An over the top reaction or do you think that, after all, the woman was in the right?