Virginia Ironside: The odds are against you – but there is a way to win
Wednesday, 2 July 2008
Print
Email
Stepmothers are in such an unenviable position that before one starts to issue advice, you have to go back to basics and look at the actual word. Nothing wrong with "step" – but "mother?" All children have mothers of their own and, even if they died when they gave birth, no one can replace them. Small wonder that the word "wicked" is so often affixed before the word – it's done to eliminate any idea of this new woman in the family has anything at all to do with the real mother.
So the first thing a person in this position should do is to eliminate the word. She can be the child's "auntie" if she likes – though preferable for her to be called by her first name. That keeps the boundaries absolutely clear. She should never introduce herself as a stepmother but rather as the child's father's new wife or partner.
Secondly, this new person should never assume any authority over the children that she hasn't already agreed with the father and she shouldn't really treat the children in any way other than she should treat her friends' children. And she should remember that it is not up to the father and children to welcome her into the family and make her feel at home. It is up to her to ingratiate herself into a family that already exists.
Thirdly, she must remember the children have probably received a dreadful blow, with their parents separating. Their default position will inevitably be one of hostility rather than welcome because it seems to them that she is an intruder in their lives – as, indeed, she is.
Finally, she must remember that her husband's duty is, rightly, firstly to his children – not to her. She must make it clear that not only does she understand he loves his children more than her but that he should love his children more than her.
I'm being hard, I know – but acknowledging those raw truths will help everyone in the end. It is she who must do all the work, bend herself to the family's ways and, if she wants to make life easier, then it is she who must try to forge friendships with the children separately, in her own right, not just tagging along on jaunts out with dad.
And if she can, she should, very slowly, try to form some kind of good relationship with the mother of the children, even if she finds it difficult. Being friendly and reasonable will make it more difficult for the woman to pour poison into the kids' ears.
But in the end, if the intruder is not only lucky but also works very hard at making the new little people in her life into friends, she might well end up with a very special role – someone who can see a situation more clearly than a parent, someone who might be able to offer support and stability in a situation in which the parents are locked in dispute.
But I'm afraid, the "wicked" comes with the job. It's a given. It is up to her to her to behave in a way that makes the word completely redundant and hope that, in time, if she simply becomes a very good friend to the children she'll have done a really good job.
It seems terribly unfair to suggest that the responsibility lies entirely with the new partner to integrate seamlessly into family life - this implies he or she is almost an unwanted guest, worming their way in.
The biological parent already has the trust of the children, and their ear, and it would seem only fair that they explain themsleves and the new situation fully, doing most of the groundwork. Presumably he or she was not forced into the relationship by the new partner?
A step-family situation is a new one for everybody concerned, and all parties can be expected to find it taxing. I find it damaging to suggest that there is no room for any other love from the biological parent than the love for the children.
Of course a parent loves a child with that unshakeable devotion that comes from having created an individual; but we can assume that both parents are adults, have chosen each other, and have formed the equally valid sort of love that comes with an adult relationship.
Posted by Evadne | 05.07.08, 10:53 GMT
I was surprised by this feature: its negative tone, misinformed comment and one sided approach. Any prospective or current step mother must have felt utterly demoralised by it. I expected Ms Ironside to offer some useful insight into this serious issue given the number of people in stepfamiliesy and that she has set herself up as some sort of authority in personal relationships. 1) The nature of the stepfamily is reflected in the quality of the relationship between biological and step parent so it this relationship which is at the heart of stepfamily life. 2) the biological parent has an active, not passive role, to play in integrating the family successfully - it is not just the responsibility of the step parent. 3) the love between parent and child is completely different from the sexual love between two adults - once accepted by step parent and children, jealousy should not be an issue. There are many helpful, informed books available - ignore Ms Ironsides's advice!
Posted by HILDA | 03.07.08, 16:54 GMT
This is quite frankly a pointless whine about the correct use of English.
If you wish to argue semantics, that's fine, but ultimately introducing yourself as a step-parent merely explains the relationship you have with the child. It has nothing to do with taken the original (and quite possibly permanently missing) parent's place in the child's family.
However, that is exactly what a step-parent does, and has to do. They need to be able to guide, reprimand or in other ways parent a child which is not biologically their own.
To state that you may only parent with the biological parents agreement is unworkable. What if something occurs which hasn't been defined as okay? Suppose the agreement is that the other parent will deal with all school issues, but is unavailable when the school calls to report the child hasn't reported in after lunch. Ms Ironside's article would indicate she'd expect you do sit and wait, rather than do what any parent would do and react.
Nonsense.
Posted by Bert | 02.07.08, 14:55 GMT