Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

to think that 'mini-wife' is problematic for exactly the same reasons that 'jailbait' is problematic?

333 replies

ArsenicyOldFace · 21/08/2014 18:48

In that it transfers responsibility from adult men onto female children?

Thankfully one doesn't hear the word 'jailbait' much any more; society has moved on and we now understand the process of grooming etc

OP posts:
HumblePieMonster · 22/08/2014 19:55

I had to google 'mini-wife'. Its still fairly meaningless to me. So, stepmothers don't like their stepdaughters?

'Jailbait' is a term that's been around for decades. It meant 'a girl you shouldn't go with because she hasn't reached the age of consent'. It did not suggest any responsibility on the part of the girl; it did not suggest she was trying to attract adult male attention.

A lot of people on mumsnet are permanently on the lookout for something that they can claim offends them, or that they can say makes the person using the term a bad human being. They love it. Its a kind of bullying that they seem to enjoy.

Original poster
ArsenicyOldFace · 22/08/2014 19:57

Well at least it's an original perspective Humble Smile

OP posts:
PausingFlatly · 22/08/2014 19:57

BTW, I agree there's value in overlooking the word used and going for the description, to work out what's actually happening.

But I can't see it's in any way wrong to also gently point out that a particular term is at best ambiguous and is obscuring the poster's meaning.

Teasing out what they are actually referring to is not aided by using "mini-wife".

Whichever meaning it's being given, it refers to harmful behaviours - by the parentifying adult, by the person doing the labelling, by the child... Obscuring what's actually going on is perpetrating the harm.

Original poster
ArsenicyOldFace · 22/08/2014 20:01

'Birth Mother' became a similarly contentious term on SP at one point IIRC. That has now largely been dropped. Someone used the comparison last week in defending their decision to continue using MW. That struck me as interesting.

OP posts:
Fairenuff · 22/08/2014 20:25

There is an almost identical thread, resulting in EXACTLY the same proposal, about another contentious term used on the step board, from a few months ago.

It was even posted as a suggestion on the "site stuff" board.

Just out of interest, Wakey, what was the outcome?

WakeyCakey45 · 22/08/2014 20:29

arsenicy That's the term I was referring to.

It's still used, by unsuspecting new members who have used it as standard terminology on other forums. After the last implosion of the board over its use (very similar to this one over MWS) the way in which posters have been made aware of its definition on MN has been balanced and proportional.

I'm guessing that in a few weeks, the same will happen regarding the term MWS. It will go out of "fashion" amongst those posters intent on making a point, and new posters who use the term inadvertently will be tactfully pointed in the direction of this thread. No-one seeking support and advice wants to make someone else's skin crawl.

I'm also guessing that MNHQ have seen it all before and just let these mad-periods run their course. I'm sure in a few months there'll be a different phrase, commonly used on the internet, that enough posters will find offensive to polarise the MN community again Grin

WakeyCakey45 · 22/08/2014 20:30

Just out of interest, Wakey, what was the outcome?

MNHQ said they don't/won't censor use of language/terms that have different interpretations by different people. The threads are still there if you're interested.

Fairenuff · 22/08/2014 20:31

the term MWS is just words because it doesn't have a formal, clinical definition

There are many definitions and interpretations of the phrase published all over the internet. Including several different ones here on MN. I have no idea, when the OP uses it, which definition they are using.

So I overlook the words and read the description and interpret the whole post, not a single term that may mean something very different to the OP than it means to others.

That's exactly what we have been saying all along. The term on it's own serves no purpose because there is no clear definition and it means different things to different people. The only thing that is clear is that some people find it offensive and have asked for it not to be used.

We have been saying all along that it's much better to describe the situations and behaviours without labelling them so that posters can respond accordingly.

Fairenuff · 22/08/2014 20:36

I'm guessing that in a few weeks, the same will happen regarding the term MWS. It will go out of "fashion" amongst those posters intent on making a point, and new posters who use the term inadvertently will be tactfully pointed in the direction of this thread. No-one seeking support and advice wants to make someone else's skin crawl.

Let's hope so, that would be great.

I'm also guessing that MNHQ have seen it all before and just let these mad-periods run their course. I'm sure in a few months there'll be a different phrase, commonly used on the internet, that enough posters will find offensive to polarise the MN community again

Evolution in language right before our very eyes Smile

WakeyCakey45 · 22/08/2014 20:37

The only thing that is clear is that some people find it offensive and have asked for it not to be used.

I suspect that it is the way in which that "request" has been delivered and received that has been at the heart of the discord recently.
While some requests have been polite, other posters, so incensed by the use of the term have been somewhat assertive In their demands. Which, if you have used the term and are not offended by it, have been interpreted as confrontational.
All through a medium that is well documented to be limited in terms of communication Grin

Original poster
ArsenicyOldFace · 22/08/2014 20:38

I do think it is important to try and explain why a phrase is offensive.

OP posts:
Fairenuff · 22/08/2014 20:40

While some requests have been polite, other posters, so incensed by the use of the term have been somewhat assertive In their demands. Which, if you have used the term and are not offended by it, have been interpreted as confrontational.

True. But I would still stop using it whether someone asked me nicely or whether they jumped down my throat. If I've offended someone, I'm going to stop doing it.

PausingFlatly · 22/08/2014 20:54

Well, people are allowed to use the term.

But if I were having a conversation with someone who insisted on using "mini-wife" instead of "spousification", once they'd had the issues explained, I would conclude they were indeed a victim-blaming twat who preferred to dump their issues on the child than sort out them out with the adult.

I might be wrong about them. But that's what I'd think of them.

IPityThePontipines · 22/08/2014 22:10

I hate the term, I think it's vile and abusive.

Despite all the claims about "spousification", a Google shows a list of blogs discussing it and tbh, I think that should be used with extreme caution, especially considering the general tenor of the SP board which frequently veers towards the child-blaming.

Olgaga - your post is excellent, excellent!

IPityThePontipines · 22/08/2014 22:10

I hate the term, I think it's vile and abusive.

Despite all the claims about "spousification", a Google shows a list of blogs discussing it and tbh, I think that should be used with extreme caution, especially considering the general tenor of the SP board which frequently veers towards the child-blaming.

Olgaga - your post is excellent, excellent!

ClashCityRocker · 22/08/2014 22:12

So is there a consensus then? Can we agree that whilst Spousification is a very real and damaging thing, the phrase 'mini wife syndrome' is too readily used and has a lot of unsavoury connotations?and that Spousification itself is maybe used as a 'reason' too readily?

And also, can we agree that we will support posters as much as we can, and gently point out to them why the phrase may be inappropriate whilst offering practical advice on how best to deal with a situation?

ClashCityRocker · 22/08/2014 22:14

Shit, that last post sounded quite patronising. Ignore me, I've had wine. But the thoughts there...

PausingFlatly · 22/08/2014 22:24

No, it sounded great! Smile

FlossyMoo · 22/08/2014 22:30

Clash it sounded fine and very reasonable. Enjoy the Wine

PerpendicularVincenzo · 22/08/2014 22:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TarkaTheOtter · 23/08/2014 15:53

olgagas post on pg10 has it spot on for me. Shame it has mainly got lost in the bickering.

Original poster
ArsenicyOldFace · 23/08/2014 16:23

Yes it was. I developed such a headache, I forgot to go back to it, but it was an excellent insightful post, a good summary of the issue and i'd like to quote half of it for anyone who missed it;

So, abandoning gender neutral terms in respect of the "mini-wife"; this is the enemy. She is usually as greedy, grasping and neurotic as the ex, and has adopted all the ex's worst unique behavioural issues.

Except unlike the ex, she has the power to expect and demand priority, time, finance and undermine parental and step-parental authority.

How can this menace be eradicated?

Let's give her a really insulting, dehumanising nickname. Dress it up with some psychology which originally blamed the behaviour of NRPs, and reinterpret it as blaming the child for some imagined psychological/personality disorder. Then call it a "syndrome".

And find other similar step-parents, who have also found the grass isn't always greener second time around.

Thank goodnessfor MN, where other people's children can freely be blamed for relationship misery

Thank you olgaga for reasserting some clarity of thinking Smile

OP posts:
olgaga · 23/08/2014 20:20

Thanks. I think this has been a valuable thread.

It's worth remembering, and "gently reminding" that the original research by Minuchin in 1974 described "spousification" as resulting from emotional demands by a parent - it is not initiated by the child, it is the child's response.

heraldgerald · 24/08/2014 12:44

Very interesting thread. Thanks all for insightful posts. I've learnt a lot. Not a sm, never been on the sp boards but can certainly relate to spousification as a form of emotional abuse.

Difficult topic for alot of people.

Reading the thread, I felt there was an undercurrent of classism at a few isolated points. Not being goady, but thought it worth pointing out.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 24/08/2014 20:34

Thinking about this. Shortly after my parents split up my dad remarried. I was under 10.my dad (step parent legal adoption) certainly not a Disney dad or using me for his emotional gain I took an instant dislike to his new wife the first time I met her I can't recall exactly what it was in total I overheard her saying that caused it but it was very critical towards my brother who had elected not to come and my mother (who despite me disliking did not behave badly over contact or asset division or maintenance) and the icing on the cake was interrogating me about my real dad and why didn't I go and see him. My dad legally adopted me when I was 3 after being in my life since a few months old, at the point I was adopted he was my 'real' dad.

I was vile to her I'm pretty sure I even put stinging nettles in her bed

On the surface she's an educated intelligent woman, over the years she resented every single penny of maintenance he paid took every chance she could to treat me like I was not his child.

I expect yes I did feel a bit insecure by her being there and quite probably attempted to assert my importance in my dads life for no reason other than she was trying to invalidate it and I was not mature enough to bring her behaviour to my dads attention.

I wonder if she described my behaviours how long it would take someone to start talking about this subject.