Dad Pays for One Son’s Wedding, Tells Other Son He Hates His Wife

A father’s generous offer to pay for his favorite son’s dream wedding immediately exposed the toxic favoritism simmering beneath the surface of his family.

When his other son, who had been married for years, asked why his wedding wasn’t funded, the father didn’t mince words. He stated plainly that he didn’t like the first son’s wife and “can’t be expected to pay for a wedding I don’t approve of.”

The situation escalated when the father tried to justify his bias with a cruel “joke” about paying for the first son’s next wedding, confirming that his favoritism was both blatant and deeply insulting.

Now, read the full story:

The father is correct on one technicality: it is his money, and he can spend it how he chooses. However, he used his money as a weapon to express his disapproval of one son’s marriage while rewarding the other. This is the definition of financial favoritism, and it is incredibly damaging.

He didn’t just refuse to pay; he used the moment to insult his daughter-in-law and imply that his son’s marriage is destined to fail. The “joke” about paying for the next wedding wasn’t a moment of clever wit; it was a cruel, passive-aggressive attack on a relationship that has clearly lasted for years.

The father needs to understand that his coldness toward his daughter-in-law is likely the reason she is “cold towards us.” His actions here confirm that she was right to keep her distance.

The father’s behavior is a textbook example of parental favoritism, which can cause long-lasting emotional damage to the less-favored child. When parents tie financial support to approval, they create a transactional relationship, not a loving one.

A study published in the Journal of Family Psychology found that perceived parental favoritism is strongly linked to depression, low self-esteem, and resentment in adult children. The father’s actions here confirm his son’s deepest fears: that his father’s love is conditional on his choice of partner.

Furthermore, the father’s attempt to justify his bias with the “next wedding” comment is a form of emotional abuse.

As licensed therapist Dr. Jonice Webb explains, such comments are often used to exert control or express disapproval in a passive-aggressive way.

“When a parent makes a cruel joke about a child’s long-term relationship, they are signaling that they do not respect the child’s judgment or commitment,” she notes. 

The father’s money is his own, but the emotional cost of his blatant favoritism is the potential ruin of his relationship with his other son.

Check out how the community responded:

The consensus was YTA, with Redditors calling out the father’s blatant favoritism and the cruelty of his comments.

Users singled out the “next wedding” comment as the most toxic part of the exchange, calling it insensitive and mean-spirited.

A few commenters pointed out that the father’s lack of diplomacy and respect likely contributed to the daughter-in-law’s coldness.

The father is correct that he can spend his money as he pleases, but he cannot control the emotional fallout of his choices. He used his wealth to reward one son and punish the other, and he did it with a stunning lack of tact.

He didn’t just pay for a wedding; he bought himself a massive family conflict.

Was the father justified in withholding funds for a marriage he didn’t approve of, or did he cross a line by insulting his son’s wife?